2009 BMW X5 vs. 2008 Cadillac XLR
To start off, 2009 BMW X5 is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2008 Cadillac XLR. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2008 Cadillac XLR would be higher. At 4,799 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 BMW X5 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 BMW X5 (350 HP @ 6300 RPM) has 30 more horse power than 2008 Cadillac XLR. (320 HP @ 6400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 BMW X5 should accelerate faster than 2008 Cadillac XLR.
Because 2009 BMW X5 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2008 Cadillac XLR. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 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, 2009 BMW X5 (475 Nm @ 3400 RPM) has 54 more torque (in Nm) than 2008 Cadillac XLR. (421 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2009 BMW X5 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2008 Cadillac XLR.
Compare all specifications:
2009 BMW X5 | 2008 Cadillac XLR | |
Make | BMW | Cadillac |
Model | X5 | XLR |
Year Released | 2009 | 2008 |
Body Type | SUV | Convertible |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4799 cc | 4566 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 350 HP | 320 HP |
Engine RPM | 6300 RPM | 6400 RPM |
Torque | 475 Nm | 421 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3400 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4860 mm | 4520 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1840 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1770 mm | 1290 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2940 mm | 2690 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.4 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 14.7 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 85 L | 68 L |