BMW X3 2012 vs Nissan X-Trail 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (BMW X3) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Nissan X-Trail) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 245 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.7 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
BMW X3 is more dynamic to drive. BMW X3 engine produces 95 HP more power than Nissan X-Trail, whereas torque is 30 NM more than Nissan X-Trail. Thanks to more power BMW X3 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.5 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.2 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW X3 consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW X3 could require 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW X3 consumes 3.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 890 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan X-Trail gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 14 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 10 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Opel Vivaro | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan X-Trail might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| BMW X3 2012 2.0 engine: Until 2015, engines used to have problems with the timing chain guides, which have been resolved over time. Other problems with this engine are the oil pump performance and its drive chain, as well as cracking ... More about BMW X3 2012 2.0 engine Nissan X-Trail 2010 2.0 engine: The engine has a good power to fuel consumption ratio and, with careful maintenance, a long service life. The most common problems with these engines are with the fuel injection system and lubrication. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.65 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.66 m | 1.70 m | |
|
BMW X3 is larger, but slightly lower. BMW X3 is 1 cm longer than the Nissan X-Trail, 9 cm wider, while the height of BMW X3 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 479 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1600 litres | no data | |
|
BMW X3 has more luggage capacity. BMW X3 has 71 litres more trunk space than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW X3 is 1.1 metres more than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means BMW X3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`310 | 2`170 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 10 800 | 8000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X3 has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |