BMW Z3 1998 vs SAAB 9-3 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.8 Petrol | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (BMW Z3) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (SAAB 9-3) 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: | 193 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 260 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.8 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
|
BMW Z3 is more dynamic to drive. BMW Z3 engine produces 78 HP more power than SAAB 9-3, whereas torque is 20 NM more than SAAB 9-3. Thanks to more power BMW Z3 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.4 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The SAAB 9-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW Z3 consumes 3.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the SAAB 9-3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW Z3 could require 480 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW Z3 consumes 3.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the SAAB 9-3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 1090 km in combined cycle | |
| 680 km on highway | 1470 km on highway | ||
| 500 km with real consumption | 1000 km with real consumption | ||
| SAAB 9-3 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: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (SAAB 9-3) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW Z3) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
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: | 7 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW 7 sērija | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW Z3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.02 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.31 m | 1.43 m | |
| BMW Z3 is 61 cm shorter than the SAAB 9-3, 3 cm wider, while the height of BMW Z3 is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 210 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW Z3 is 0.5 metres less than that of the SAAB 9-3, which means BMW Z3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`570 kg | 1`600 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| SAAB 9-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW Z3 has serious deffects in 240 percent more cases than SAAB 9-3, so SAAB 9-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 600 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW Z3 has
|
SAAB 9-3 has
| |