BMW 3 series 2010 vs Kia Optima 2013
| Body: | Cabrio | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.7 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 184 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 325 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.4 seconds | 11.6 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is more dynamic to drive. BMW 3 series engine produces 48 HP more power than Kia Optima, whereas torque is 55 NM more than Kia Optima. Thanks to more power BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Kia Optima, which means that by driving the BMW 3 series over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Kia Optima. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 61 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1080 km in combined cycle | 1160 km in combined cycle | |
| 1290 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| 950 km with real consumption | 1060 km with real consumption | ||
| Kia Optima gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Kia Optima) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 3 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 17 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X3, BMW X1 | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tucson, Hyundai i40, Hyundai ix35 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW 3 series might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.61 m | 4.85 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.38 m | 1.46 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is smaller. BMW 3 series is 23 cm shorter than the Kia Optima, 5 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 3 series is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 210 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
350 litres | no data | |
|
Kia Optima has more luggage space. BMW 3 series has 295 litres less trunk space than the Kia Optima. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 0.2 metres less than that of the Kia Optima. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`100 | 2`050 | |
| Safety: | |||
| BMW 3 series scores higher in safety tests. The BMW 3 series scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 13 400 | 9800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Kia Optima has
| |