BMW X3 2006 vs Volvo XC60 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 218 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.5 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
BMW X3 is more dynamic to drive. BMW X3 engine produces 15 HP more power than Volvo XC60, but torque is 50 NM less than Volvo XC60. Thanks to more power BMW X3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 8.0 | |
|
The Volvo XC60 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. BMW X3 consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW X3 could require 195 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| Volvo XC60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Ground clearance: | 201 mm (7.9 inches) | 230 mm (9.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC60 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Volvo XC60 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from eleven 4x4 versions of Volvo XC60 2009 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 1 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW Z4 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo V60 | |
| 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 | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.71 m | |
|
BMW X3 is smaller. BMW X3 is 6 cm shorter than the Volvo XC60, 4 cm narrower, while the height of BMW X3 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 480 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1560 litres | 1455 litres | |
| BMW X3 has 15 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC60. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in BMW X3 (by 105 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | no data | |
| 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`260 | 2`500 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW X3 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 6800 | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X3 has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |