2008 BMW X5 vs. 2003 Cadillac CTS-V
To start off, 2008 BMW X5 is newer by 5 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. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2008 BMW X5 weights approximately 335 kg more 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 229 more torque (in Nm) than 2008 BMW X5. (300 Nm @ 3500 RPM). This means 2003 Cadillac CTS-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2008 BMW X5.
Compare all specifications:
2008 BMW X5 | 2003 Cadillac CTS-V | |
Make | BMW | Cadillac |
Model | X5 | CTS-V |
Year Released | 2008 | 2003 |
Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2977 cc | 5666 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 400 HP |
Torque | 300 Nm | 529 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 4800 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 84 mm | 99.1 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 89.6 mm | 92 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.2:1 | 10.1:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2080 kg | 1745 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4870 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1460 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2830 mm | 2890 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 85 L | 66 L |