BMW 3 series 2010 vs Volkswagen Polo 2009
| Body: | Cabrio | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.6 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (BMW 3 series) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Volkswagen Polo) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 195 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 14 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is more dynamic to drive. BMW 3 series engine produces 68 HP more power than Volkswagen Polo, but torque is 5 NM less than Volkswagen Polo. Thanks to more power BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 4.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 4.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 2.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW 3 series could require 360 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 2.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1120 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 820 km with real consumption | 950 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Polo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volkswagen Polo) 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 | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 1 sērija | Used also on Skoda Fabia | |
| 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. | |||
| BMW 3 sērija 2010 2.0 engine: The BMW N43 engine is built around a lightweight alloy cylinder block with a twin-cam, 16-valve head. It uses a dual-pump fuel delivery system—one located inside the tank to transfer fuel and supply the high-pressure pump, which then boosts fuel pressure up to 200 bar. Notably, the system lacks a fine fuel filter and relies only on a ... More about BMW 3 sērija 2010 2.0 engine Volkswagen Polo 2009 1.6 engine: The 1.6 TDI turbo diesel engine is generally reliable, which is especially reassuring given its frequent use in commercial vehicles. Even under heavy use, it can exceed 500,000 km, provided that maintenance is performed regularly and ... More about Volkswagen Polo 2009 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.61 m | 3.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.38 m | 1.49 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is larger, but lower. BMW 3 series is 64 cm longer than the Volkswagen Polo, 10 cm wider, while the height of BMW 3 series is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 210 litres | 280 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
350 litres | 952 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Polo has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, BMW 3 series has 70 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. This could mean that the BMW 3 series uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Polo (by 602 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`025 | 1`650 | |
| 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 | average | |
| BMW 3 series has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Polo has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than BMW 3 series, so BMW 3 series quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 800 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |