BMW X3 2006 vs Volvo XC60 2008
Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
---|---|---|---|
Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 3.0 Petrol | |
Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 218 HP | 285 HP | |
Torque: | 250 NM | 400 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 7.5 seconds | |
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. BMW X3 engine produces 67 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 150 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, BMW X3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 11.9 | |
Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 12.1 l/100km | |
The BMW X3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW X3 consumes 2.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that by driving the BMW X3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 360 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW X3 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 70 litres | |
Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
900 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
560 km with real consumption | 570 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
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. | |||
Engines | |||
Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 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 XC60 engine could be longer. | |||
Engine production duration: | 7 years | 3 years | |
Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW Z4 | Used also on Volvo S80 | |
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. | |||
BMW X3 2006 2.5 engine: On this engine, the valve seals and crankcase breather valve diaphragm tend to fail after 80-100 000 km, leading to increased oil consumption. It is recommended to choose engines manufactured in the last years ... More about BMW X3 2006 2.5 engine | |||
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 | 11.9 meters | |
The turning circle of the BMW X3 is 0.1 metres more than that of the Volvo XC60. | |||
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`300 | 2`440 | |
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 (€): | 6400 | 9000 | |
Pros and Cons: |
BMW X3 has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |