2006 BMW 525 vs. 2004 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2006 BMW 525 is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Cadillac CTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Cadillac CTS would be higher. At 3,173 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, both vehicles can yield 215 horse power. So under normal driving conditions, the acceleration of both vehicles should be relatively similar.
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 Cadillac CTS (300 Nm @ 3400 RPM) has 49 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 BMW 525. (251 Nm @ 2750 RPM). This means 2004 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 BMW 525.
Compare all specifications:
2006 BMW 525 | 2004 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | BMW | Cadillac |
Model | 525 | CTS |
Year Released | 2006 | 2004 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2999 cc | 3173 cc |
Horse Power | 215 HP | 215 HP |
Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 251 Nm | 300 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2750 RPM | 3400 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4860 mm | 4830 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1800 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2750 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.8 L/100km | 11 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 68 L |