BMW 3 series 1991 vs Volvo 850 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
| 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: | 115 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 222 NM | 290 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo 850 is a more dynamic driving. BMW 3 series engine produces 25 HP less power than Volvo 850, whereas torque is 68 NM less than Volvo 850. Due to the lower power, BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo 850 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW 3 series could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 73 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 1100 km in combined cycle | |
| 1140 km on highway | 1400 km on highway | ||
| 810 km with real consumption | 1100 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo 850 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 850) 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: | 480'000 km | 560'000 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 850 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on BMW 5 sērija | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.43 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.41 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is smaller. BMW 3 series is 24 cm shorter than the Volvo 850, 6 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 3 series is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 435 litres | 445 litres | |
| BMW 3 series has 10 litres less trunk space than the Volvo 850. | |||
| 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 850, which means BMW 3 series can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`815 | 1`960 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Volvo 850 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volvo 850, so Volvo 850 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 8.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Volvo 850 has
| |