2004 BMW M3 vs. 2009 Cadillac CTS-V
To start off, 2009 Cadillac CTS-V is newer by 5 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 6,162 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac CTS-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Cadillac CTS-V (542 HP @ 6200 RPM) has 225 more horse power than 2004 BMW M3. (317 HP @ 7250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac CTS-V should accelerate faster 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, 2009 Cadillac CTS-V (550 Nm) has 195 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 BMW M3. (355 Nm). This means 2009 Cadillac CTS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 BMW M3.
Compare all specifications:
2004 BMW M3 | 2009 Cadillac CTS-V | |
Make | BMW | Cadillac |
Model | M3 | CTS-V |
Year Released | 2004 | 2009 |
Body Type | Convertible | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3169 cc | 6162 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 317 HP | 542 HP |
Engine RPM | 7250 RPM | 6200 RPM |
Torque | 355 Nm | 550 Nm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 11.5:1 | 9.0:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4870 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1850 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1460 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2790 mm | 2890 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 68 L |