2009 Bmw 535i Xdrive Base Sedan 4-door 3.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Cadillac CT5 vs. BMW 3 Series | How they compare on paper

Cadillac just introduced the CT5 sedan at the 2019 New York Auto Show, and it's set to replace both the larger CTS and smaller ATS in the brand's lineup. We have all the details and features for you, in addition to a deep dive with the car's chief engineer, but now it's time to see how it stacks up to the long-time standard bearer in this class: the BMW 3 Series. Now, the car is a bit larger than the completely new 2019 3 Series, but Cadillac says the 3 and the rest of the compact luxury sedan class is its target for this car. We'll dive further into this little conundrum later. This comparison will look at how these vehicles measure up on paper, as we haven't driven the CT5 yet. That will come later, but we're expecting it to be a proper sport sedan competitor with the 3 Series, since Cadillac is building it off GM's dynamically superb Alpha platform. Now let's get on with the comparison. Powertrains and performance Both of these sedans come standard with 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engines. The BMW four-pot is a bit more potent, coming in with 18 more horsepower and 37 pound-feet of torque more than the Cadillac. Here's our driving review of the BMW. The only upgrade engine for both available initially are turbocharged six-cylinders. BMW offers up its revised inline-six, while Cadillac offers a V6. These six-cylinders are both 3.0 liters. Cadillac bests the BMW in brute torque by 31 pound-feet, but BMW takes the horsepower prize, making 47 more ponies. It's hard to say which car will actually be faster to 60 mph — they'll probably end up being about the same once official numbers are out. This segment used to be one guaranteed to offer a manual transmission, but that's not the case anymore. Neither Cadillac nor BMW will offer a manual to start, but expect to see the stick shift return to higher performance models of each car. For now, they both get torque-converter-style automatic transmissions. One dimension that isn't going away from either anytime soon is rear-wheel drive. Both cars offer rear-wheel and all-wheel drive in every spec available. Fuel economy for the 3 Series is impressive at 30 mpg combined with the four-cylinder. We'll have to wait and see if Cadillac can challenge that figure with its less powerful engine. Size and practicality Here's where a lot of the confusion about the Cadillac CT5 sets in. The CT5 is a tad larger than the 3 Series in its exterior dimensions, but the interior specs are nearly identical.

2014 BMW 6 Series M Sport family to start from $80,625*

BMW shoppers looking for sportier and more luxurious versions of the 6 Series and 6 Series Gran Coupe without stepping up to the mighty M6 now have something new to check out. Offered on all versions of the 640i and 650i for the 2014 model year, the company's M Sport Edition package goes on sale in June with prices starting at $80,625 for the 640i Coupe, $83,325 for the 640i Gran Coupe and $87,925 for the 640i Convertible (*all prices including $925 for destination).
This package will allow standard 6 Series models to receive M6 styling cues like the more aggressive, aero-tuned front fascia, 19-inch wheels and even the option of the M6-exclusive Sakhir Orange metallic hue shown above. Matching the M6-like exterior, the interior will also be upgraded with an M-specific steering wheel, M badges on the door sill plates and the option of BMW Individual leather with a unique white and orange color scheme. With price increases of well over $5,000 for the M Sport Edition, this package also includes plenty of standard features like the company's Professional hi-fi audio system, head-up display, ConnectedDrive Navigation and - wait for it - a ski bag.

Is the skill of rev matching being lost to computers?

If the ability to drive a vehicle equipped with a manual gearbox is becoming a lost art, then the skill of being able to match revs on downshifts is the stuff they would teach at the automotive equivalent of the Shaolin Temple. The usefulness of rev matching in street driving is limited most of the time – aside from sounding cool and impressing your friends. But out on a race track or the occasional fast, windy road, its benefits are abundantly clear. While in motion, the engine speed and wheel speed of a vehicle with a manual transmission are kept in sync when the clutch is engaged (i.e. when the clutch pedal is not being pressed down). However, when changing gear, that mechanical link is severed briefly, and the synchronization between the motor and wheels is broken. When upshifting during acceleration, this isn't much of an issue, as there's typically not a huge disparity between engine speed and wheel speed as a car accelerates. Rev-matching downshifts is the stuff they would teach at the automotive equivalent of the Shaolin Temple. But when slowing down and downshifting – as you might do when approaching a corner at a high rate of speed – that gap of time caused by the disengagement of the clutch from the engine causes the revs to drop. Without bringing up the revs somehow to help the engine speed match the wheel speed in the gear you're about to use, you'll typically get a sudden jolt when re-engaging the clutch as physics brings everything back into sync. That jolt can be a big problem when you're moving along swiftly, causing instability or even a loss of traction, particularly in rear-wheel-drive cars. So the point of rev matching is to blip the throttle simultaneously as you downshift gears in order to bring the engine speed to a closer match with the wheel speed before you re-engage the clutch in that lower gear, in turn providing a much smoother downshift. When braking is thrown in, you get heel-toe downshifting, which involves some dexterity to use all three pedals at the same time with just two feet – clutch in, slow the car while revving, clutch out. However, even if you're aware of heel-toe technique and the basic elements of how to perform a rev match, perfecting it to the point of making it useful can be difficult.