2006 BMW X5 vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 BMW X5. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 BMW X5 would be higher. At 4,392 cc, 2006 BMW X5 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 BMW X5 (315 HP @ 5400 RPM) has 49 more horse power than 2013 Cadillac CTS. (266 HP @ 7000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 BMW X5 should accelerate faster than 2013 Cadillac CTS. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 BMW X5 weights approximately 414 kg more than 2013 Cadillac CTS. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2006 BMW X5 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2013 Cadillac CTS. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 BMW X5 will offer significantly more control. 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 BMW X5 (439 Nm @ 3600 RPM) has 137 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Cadillac CTS. (302 Nm @ 5700 RPM). This means 2006 BMW X5 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
2006 BMW X5 | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | BMW | Cadillac |
Model | X5 | CTS |
Year Released | 2006 | 2013 |
Body Type | SUV | Station Wagon |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4392 cc | 3000 cc |
Horse Power | 315 HP | 266 HP |
Engine RPM | 5400 RPM | 7000 RPM |
Torque | 439 Nm | 302 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 5700 RPM |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2235 kg | 1821 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 4877 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1842 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1760 mm | 1473 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2830 mm | 2880 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 13 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 92 L | 68 L |