BMW 3 series 2003 vs Volvo C70 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.4 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: | 143 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is more dynamic to drive. BMW 3 series engine produces 3 HP more power than Volvo C70, but torque is 20 NM less than Volvo C70. Thanks to more power BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 9.6 | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. BMW 3 series consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C70, which means that by driving the BMW 3 series over 15,000 km in a year you can save 270 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 640 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| BMW 3 series 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 C70) 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 | 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 C70 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo S40, Volvo V50, Volvo S70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo C70 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.40 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is smaller. BMW 3 series is 9 cm shorter than the Volvo C70, 6 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 3 series is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 260 litres | 200 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
300 litres | 404 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, BMW 3 series has 60 litres more trunk space than the Volvo C70. The Volvo C70 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo C70 (by 104 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 2.7 metres less than that of the Volvo C70, which means BMW 3 series can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`925 | 2`090 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| BMW 3 series has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo C70 has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than BMW 3 series, so BMW 3 series quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 6000 | 5600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Volvo C70 has
| |