2006 BMW M6 vs. 2003 Cadillac CTS-V
To start off, 2006 BMW M6 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Cadillac CTS-V. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Cadillac CTS-V would be higher. At 5,666 cc (8 cylinders), 2003 Cadillac CTS-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 BMW M6 (500 HP @ 7750 RPM) has 100 more horse power than 2003 Cadillac CTS-V. (400 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 BMW M6 should accelerate faster than 2003 Cadillac CTS-V.
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, 2003 Cadillac CTS-V (529 Nm @ 4800 RPM) has 10 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 BMW M6. (519 Nm @ 6100 RPM). This means 2003 Cadillac CTS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 BMW M6.
Compare all specifications:
2006 BMW M6 | 2003 Cadillac CTS-V | |
Make | BMW | Cadillac |
Model | M6 | CTS-V |
Year Released | 2006 | 2003 |
Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4997 cc | 5666 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 10 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 500 HP | 400 HP |
Engine RPM | 7750 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 519 Nm | 529 Nm |
Torque RPM | 6100 RPM | 4800 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 92 mm | 99.1 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 75.2 mm | 92 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 12.0:1 | 10.1:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4880 mm | 4870 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1800 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1460 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2790 mm | 2890 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 66 L |