2009 BMW 530 vs. 2013 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac CTS is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 BMW 530. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 BMW 530 would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2013 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Cadillac CTS (266 HP @ 7000 RPM) has 12 more horse power than 2009 BMW 530. (254 HP @ 6600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 2009 BMW 530.
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, 2013 Cadillac CTS (302 Nm @ 5700 RPM) has 2 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 BMW 530. (300 Nm @ 3500 RPM). This means 2013 Cadillac CTS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 BMW 530.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 BMW 530 | 2013 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | BMW | Cadillac |
| Model | 530 | CTS |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Station Wagon | Station Wagon |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2995 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 254 HP | 266 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6600 RPM | 7000 RPM |
| Torque | 300 Nm | 302 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 5700 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.7:1 | 11.7 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4850 mm | 4877 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1470 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1850 mm | 1473 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 6.8 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 68 L |
