2009 Cadillac XLR vs. 2012 BMW 535
To start off, 2012 BMW 535 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Cadillac XLR. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Cadillac XLR would be higher. At 4,565 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac XLR is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 BMW 535 weights approximately 290 kg more than 2009 Cadillac XLR.
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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Cadillac XLR | 2012 BMW 535 | |
| Make | Cadillac | BMW |
| Model | XLR | 535 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Convertible | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4565 cc | 2979 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 321 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline / Electric Hybrid |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 8-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1635 kg | 1925 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4520 mm | 4899 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 1860 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1290 mm | 1464 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2690 mm | 2968 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.8 L/100km | 6.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 5.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 6.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 67 L |
