2005 BMW M3 vs. 2006 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 BMW M3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 BMW M3 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 80 more horse power than 2005 BMW M3. (320 HP @ 7400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2005 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, 2006 Cadillac CTS (536 Nm) has 199 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 BMW M3. (337 Nm). This means 2006 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 BMW M3.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 BMW M3 | 2006 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | BMW | Cadillac |
| Model | M3 | CTS |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Convertible | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3244 cc | 5965 cc |
| Horse Power | 320 HP | 400 HP |
| Engine RPM | 7400 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 337 Nm | 536 Nm |
| 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 | 1800 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2740 mm | 2890 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.2 L/100km | 9.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 14.9 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 12.5 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 64 L |
