BMW 3 series 2004 vs Volvo C70 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 9.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo C70 is a more dynamic driving. BMW 3 series engine produces 30 HP less power than Volvo C70, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Volvo C70. Due to the lower power, BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 7.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 1 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 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C70. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1260 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 980 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 3 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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. | |||
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): | 2`025 | 2`090 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Volvo C70 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 65 percent more cases than Volvo C70, so Volvo C70 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 6200 | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Volvo C70 has
| |