BMW X3 2004 vs Honda CR-V 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
BMW X3 is more dynamic to drive. BMW X3 engine produces 10 HP more power than Honda CR-V, but torque is 10 NM less than Honda CR-V. Thanks to more power BMW X3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW X3 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW X3 could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW X3 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 930 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| 1130 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW X3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 350'000 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 BMW X3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord, Honda FR-V | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Honda CR-V might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The BMW X3 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: | 4.56 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.71 m | |
| BMW X3 is 8 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 7 cm wider, while the height of BMW X3 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 480 litres | 525 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1560 litres | 952 litres | |
| BMW X3 has 45 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in BMW X3 (by 608 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW X3 is 1.4 metres more than that of the Honda CR-V, which means BMW X3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`255 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW X3 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4800 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X3 has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |