2009 BMW M3 vs. 2008 Pontiac G5
To start off, 2009 BMW M3 is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2008 Pontiac G5. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2008 Pontiac G5 would be higher. At 3,999 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 BMW M3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 BMW M3 (414 HP @ 8300 RPM) has 243 more horse power than 2008 Pontiac G5. (171 HP @ 5800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 BMW M3 should accelerate faster than 2008 Pontiac G5.
Because 2009 BMW M3 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2009 BMW M3. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2008 Pontiac G5, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 M3 (295 Nm @ 3900 RPM) has 69 more torque (in Nm) than 2008 Pontiac G5. (226 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2009 BMW M3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2008 Pontiac G5.
Compare all specifications:
2009 BMW M3 | 2008 Pontiac G5 | |
Make | BMW | Pontiac |
Model | M3 | G5 |
Year Released | 2009 | 2008 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3999 cc | 2401 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 414 HP | 171 HP |
Engine RPM | 8300 RPM | 5800 RPM |
Torque | 295 Nm | 226 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3900 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4590 mm | 4570 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1720 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1420 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2770 mm | 2640 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.9 L/100km | 7.5 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 17 L/100km | 10.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 14.9 L/100km | 9.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 49 L |