BMW X3 2006 vs Honda CR-V 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
| BMW X3 and Honda CR-V have the same engine power, but BMW X3 torque is 10 NM more than Honda CR-V. BMW X3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.5 l/100km | 9.9 l/100km | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification BMW X3 consumes 0.3 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 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW X3 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 640 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 580 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 | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X1, BMW Z4 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord, Honda FR-V, Honda Stream | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW X3 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: | 4.57 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.71 m | |
| BMW X3 is 7 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 7 cm wider, while the height of BMW X3 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 480 litres | 527 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1560 litres | 952 litres | |
| BMW X3 has 47 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 | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW X3 is 1.6 metres more than that of the Honda CR-V, which means BMW X3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`200 | 1`910 | |
| Safety: | 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 (€): | 6800 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X3 has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |