Alfa Romeo 156 2000 vs BMW 3 series 1991
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 99 HP | |
| Torque: | 169 NM | 141 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.4 seconds | 13 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo 156 is more dynamic to drive. Alfa Romeo 156 engine produces 41 HP more power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 28 NM more than BMW 3 series. Thanks to more power Alfa Romeo 156 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.8 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Alfa Romeo 156 could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 3 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Alfa Romeo 156) 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.43 m | 4.43 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.39 m | |
| Alfa Romeo 156 and BMW 3 series are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 380 litres | 435 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage space. Alfa Romeo 156 has 55 litres less trunk space than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Alfa Romeo 156 is 1.1 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Alfa Romeo 156 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`650 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Alfa Romeo 156 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 300 percent more cases than Alfa Romeo 156, so Alfa Romeo 156 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.2/10 | 7.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Alfa Romeo 156 has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |