BMW X3 2014 vs Volvo XC60 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 3.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 313 HP | 304 HP | |
| Torque: | 630 NM | 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 5.3 seconds | 7.3 seconds | |
|
BMW X3 is more dynamic to drive. BMW X3 engine produces 9 HP more power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 190 NM more than Volvo XC60. Thanks to more power BMW X3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 10.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.5 l/100km | 11.1 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW X3 consumes 4.7 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 705 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW X3 consumes 2.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
| 780 km with real consumption | 630 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: | 204 mm (8 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: | 350'000 km | 390'000 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: | 17 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW X5, BMW 7 sērija, BMW X6 | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70, 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.66 m | 1.71 m | |
| BMW X3 is 1 cm longer than the Volvo XC60, 1 cm narrower, 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 | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW X3 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`440 | 2`440 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW X3 has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 20 400 | 15 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X3 has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |