BMW 3 series 1996 vs Volvo V50 2004
| 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: | 1.9 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 180 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 11 seconds | |
| BMW 3 series engine produces 15 HP more power than Volvo V50, whereas torque is 15 NM more than Volvo V50. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 | 7.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.8 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V50 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 1.5 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 225 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V50. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V50 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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. | |||
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`760 | 1`890 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Volvo V50 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 630 percent more cases than Volvo V50, so Volvo V50 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 2000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 6.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Volvo V50 has
| |