BMW X3 2010 vs Volvo XC60 2008
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 3.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 306 HP | 285 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 5.7 seconds | 7.5 seconds | |
|
BMW X3 is more dynamic to drive. BMW X3 engine produces 21 HP more power than Volvo XC60, the torque is the same for both cars. Thanks to more power BMW X3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 | 11.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.4 l/100km | 12.1 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW X3 consumes 3.1 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 465 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 Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 570 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW X3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW X5, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X6 | 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 2010 3.0 engine: Using poor quality oil on this engine will quickly lead to soot build-up, resulting in damage to the hydrocompensators, Vanos and Valvetronic systems. | |||
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: | 11.7 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW X3 is 0.2 metres less 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`365 | 2`440 | |
| 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 (€): | 12 200 | 9000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X3 has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |