2004 BMW 530 vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS is newer by 9 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 3,600 cc (6 cylinders), 2013 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Cadillac CTS (314 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 99 more horse power than 2004 BMW 530. (215 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2004 BMW 530. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 97 kg more than 2004 BMW 530. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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, 2004 BMW 530 (500 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 127 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Cadillac CTS. (373 Nm @ 4900 RPM). This means 2004 BMW 530 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 BMW 530 | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | BMW | Cadillac |
| Model | 530 | CTS |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Station Wagon | Station Wagon |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2991 cc | 3600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 215 HP | 314 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 6800 RPM |
| Torque | 500 Nm | 373 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4900 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 84 mm | 94 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 90 mm | 86 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 17.0:1 | 11.3 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1760 kg | 1857 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4850 mm | 4877 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1500 mm | 1473 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 6.4 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 11.1 L/100km | 13 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 8 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 68 L |
