BMW X3 2011 vs Volvo XC60 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 184 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.3 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
| BMW X3 engine produces 19 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Volvo XC60. Despite less power, BMW X3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 8.0 | |
| BMW X3 consumes 0.1 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 15 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| 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. 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: | 300'000 km | 350'000 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 | 1 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X1 | 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: | 4.65 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.66 m | 1.71 m | |
| BMW X3 is 2 cm longer than the Volvo XC60, width is practically the same , while the height of BMW X3 is 5 cm lower. | |||
| 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: | 11.9 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`285 | 2`500 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Volvo XC60 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for BMW X3, so Volvo XC60 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 13 200 | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X3 has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |