2004 BMW M3 vs. 2008 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2008 Cadillac CTS is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 BMW M3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 BMW M3 would be higher. At 3,598 cc (6 cylinders), 2008 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 BMW M3 (317 HP @ 7250 RPM) has 13 more horse power than 2008 Cadillac CTS. (304 HP @ 6400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 BMW M3 should accelerate faster than 2008 Cadillac CTS. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2008 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 15 kg more than 2004 BMW M3.
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, 2008 Cadillac CTS (370 Nm) has 15 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 BMW M3. (355 Nm). This means 2008 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 BMW M3.
Compare all specifications:
2004 BMW M3 | 2008 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | BMW | Cadillac |
Model | M3 | CTS |
Year Released | 2004 | 2008 |
Body Type | Convertible | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3169 cc | 3598 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 317 HP | 304 HP |
Engine RPM | 7250 RPM | 6400 RPM |
Torque | 355 Nm | 370 Nm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 11.5:1 | 11.3:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1775 kg | 1790 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4870 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1850 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1480 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2790 mm | 2890 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.4 L/100km | 9.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.9 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.2 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 68 L |