2009 BMW 535 vs. 2012 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2012 Cadillac CTS is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 BMW 535. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 BMW 535 would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 Cadillac CTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 BMW 535 (300 HP @ 5800 RPM) has 30 more horse power than 2012 Cadillac CTS. (270 HP @ 7000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 BMW 535 should accelerate faster than 2012 Cadillac CTS.
Because 2009 BMW 535 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2012 Cadillac CTS. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 BMW 535 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, 2009 BMW 535 (407 Nm @ 1400 RPM) has 105 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Cadillac CTS. (302 Nm @ 5700 RPM). This means 2009 BMW 535 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 BMW 535 | 2012 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | BMW | Cadillac |
| Model | 535 | CTS |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2979 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 300 HP | 270 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5800 RPM | 7000 RPM |
| Torque | 407 Nm | 302 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 1400 RPM | 5700 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4860 mm | 4859 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1473 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.4 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 68 L |
