BMW X3 2006 vs Volvo XC60 2008
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 3.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 272 HP | 285 HP | |
| Torque: | 315 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.5 seconds | 7.5 seconds | |
| BMW X3 engine produces 13 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 85 NM less than Volvo XC60. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 11.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.3 l/100km | 12.1 l/100km | |
|
By specification BMW X3 consumes 2.2 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 330 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, BMW X3 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
| 540 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: | 380'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW X5, BMW 7 sērija, BMW 1 sērija | 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 3.0 engine: The BMW N52 engine was the first water-cooled engine to feature a composite cylinder block made from a magnesium and aluminum alloy. It was included in Ward’s AutoWorld’s list of the top 10 engines in 2006 and 2007. While it offers many advantages, the ... More about BMW X3 2006 3.0 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
| |