BMW 3 series 1991 vs Volvo V50 2006
| Body: | Sedan | Estate car / wagon | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 141 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Volvo V50 is a more dynamic driving. BMW 3 series and Volvo V50 have the same engine power, but BMW 3 series torque is 9 NM less than Volvo V50. BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.3 l/100km | 7.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V50 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V50, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW 3 series could require 180 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 2.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V50. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo V50) 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: | 380'000 km | 440'000 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 Volvo V50 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo S40, Volvo C30 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo V50 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The BMW 3 series engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.43 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.45 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is smaller. BMW 3 series is 8 cm shorter than the Volvo V50, 7 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 3 series is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 435 litres | 417 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1307 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, BMW 3 series has 18 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V50. The Volvo V50 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volvo V50, which means BMW 3 series can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`690 | 1`850 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 2200 | 2200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 6.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Volvo V50 has
| |