BMW 3 series 1999 vs Ford Cougar 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| 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: | 193 HP | 130 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 176 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is more dynamic to drive. BMW 3 series engine produces 63 HP more power than Ford Cougar, whereas torque is 104 NM more than Ford Cougar. Thanks to more power BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 8.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.8 l/100km | 9.1 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Cougar 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 Ford Cougar, 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 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Cougar. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Ford Cougar) 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: | 420'000 km | 480'000 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 Ford Cougar engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 7 sērija, BMW Z3 | Used also on Ford Focus | |
| 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. | |||
| 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: | 4.49 m | 4.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.32 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is smaller, but higher. BMW 3 series is 21 cm shorter than the Ford Cougar, 1 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 3 series is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 930 litres | |
| BMW 3 series has 20 litres less trunk space than the Ford Cougar. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 0.9 metres less than that of the Ford Cougar, which means BMW 3 series can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`895 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Ford Cougar has
| |