Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2010 vs BMW X3 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 184 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
|
BMW X3 is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque engine produces 34 HP less power than BMW X3, but torque is 20 NM more than BMW X3. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover Evoque consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1050 km in combined cycle | 1190 km in combined cycle | |
| 1150 km on highway | 1340 km on highway | ||
| 780 km with real consumption | 940 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW X3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Land Rover Range Rover Evoque engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Freelander, Jaguar XF | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X1 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW X3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.65 m | |
| Width: | 1.97 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.64 m | 1.66 m | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 28 cm shorter than the BMW X3, 9 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 575 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1600 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has 25 litres more trunk space than the BMW X3. The BMW X3 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 0.4 metres less than that of the BMW X3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`350 | 2`290 | |
| Safety: | |||
| BMW X3 is better rated in child safety tests. The Land Rover Range Rover Evoque scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 14 600 | 13 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
|
BMW X3 has
| |