BMW 3 series 2004 vs Volvo XC90 2005
| Body: | Cabrio | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.4 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: | 150 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 12 seconds | |
| BMW 3 series engine produces 13 HP less power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Volvo XC90. Despite less power, BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 9.4 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 2.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90, which means that by driving the BMW 3 series over 15,000 km in a year you can save 405 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 1260 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 820 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 3 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 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 XC90 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 1 sērija, BMW X3 | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70, Volvo C30 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.74 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is smaller. BMW 3 series is 31 cm shorter than the Volvo XC90, 14 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 3 series is 37 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 260 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2404 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, BMW 3 series has 11 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC90. The Volvo XC90 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| 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 XC90, which means BMW 3 series can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`040 | 2`735 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | low | |
| BMW 3 series has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo XC90 has serious deffects in 160 percent more cases than BMW 3 series, so BMW 3 series quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 4400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 9.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |