BMW X3 2010 vs Volvo XC60 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 184 HP | 215 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.5 seconds | 8.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. BMW X3 engine produces 31 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 60 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, BMW X3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW X3 consumes 0.8 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 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW X3 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1190 km in combined cycle | 1090 km in combined cycle | |
| 1260 km on highway | 1320 km on highway | ||
| 900 km with real consumption | 850 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
| Ground clearance: | 212 mm (8.3 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: | 330'000 km | 460'000 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: | 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 | Used also on Volvo XC70 | |
| 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 | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.66 m | 1.71 m | |
| BMW X3 and Volvo XC60 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1600 litres | 1455 litres | |
|
BMW X3 has more luggage capacity. BMW X3 has 55 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC60. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in BMW X3 (by 145 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.7 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`300 | 2`270 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW X3 has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 10 800 | 13 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X3 has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |