BMW X3 2010 vs Citroen C-Crosser 2007
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 184 HP | 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.5 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
BMW X3 is more dynamic to drive. BMW X3 engine produces 28 HP more power than Citroen C-Crosser, the torque is the same for both cars. Thanks to more power BMW X3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW X3 consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C-Crosser, which means that by driving the BMW X3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 240 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW X3 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C-Crosser. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1190 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 1260 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 900 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW X3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Ground clearance: | 212 mm (8.3 inches) | 174 mm (6.9 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, BMW X3 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: | 330'000 km | 480'000 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 Citroen C-Crosser engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 18 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X1 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi Outlander, Peugeot 4007 | |
| 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 2010 2.0 engine: Because of problems with the timing chain, which tends to stretch at 100,000 km, the BMW N47 engine is sometimes called the worst BMW engine. Replacing the timing chain also requires removing the engine from ... More about BMW X3 2010 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.65 m | 4.65 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.66 m | 1.67 m | |
| BMW X3 and Citroen C-Crosser are practically the same length. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 184 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 184 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 550 litres | 441 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1600 litres | 1686 litres | |
| In 5-seat version BMW X3 has more luggage space (by 109 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Citroen C-Crosser (by 86 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.7 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW X3 is 0.3 metres less than that of the Citroen C-Crosser. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`300 | 2`410 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 12 200 | 6400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X3 has
|
Citroen C-Crosser has
| |