BMW Z3 1996 vs Volvo C70 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 180 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.5 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
| BMW Z3 engine produces 23 HP less power than Volvo C70, whereas torque is 50 NM less than Volvo C70. Despite less power, BMW Z3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 9.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 9.7 l/100km | |
|
The BMW Z3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW Z3 consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C70, which means that by driving the BMW Z3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 255 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW Z3 consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C70. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo C70 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 (Volvo C70) 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.02 m | 4.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.29 m | 1.43 m | |
|
BMW Z3 is smaller. BMW Z3 is 70 cm shorter than the Volvo C70, 13 cm narrower, while the height of BMW Z3 is 14 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 165 litres | 262 litres | |
|
Volvo C70 has more luggage space. BMW Z3 has 97 litres less trunk space than the Volvo C70. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW Z3 is 1.7 metres less than that of the Volvo C70, which means BMW Z3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`435 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Volvo C70 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW Z3 has serious deffects in 70 percent more cases than Volvo C70, so Volvo C70 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 7800 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW Z3 has
|
Volvo C70 has
| |