2004 BMW 530 vs. 2006 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 BMW 530. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 BMW 530 would be higher. At 5,965 cc, 2006 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac CTS (400 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 185 more horse power than 2004 BMW 530. (215 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2004 BMW 530.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2006 Cadillac CTS (536 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 36 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 BMW 530. (500 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 BMW 530.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 BMW 530 | 2006 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | BMW | Cadillac |
| Model | 530 | CTS |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Station Wagon | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2991 cc | 5965 cc |
| Horse Power | 215 HP | 400 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 500 Nm | 536 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4850 mm | 4870 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1800 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1500 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2890 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 6.4 L/100km | 9.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 11.1 L/100km | 14.9 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 8 L/100km | 12.5 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 64 L |
