BMW Z4 2009 vs Volvo C70 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 204 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.3 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
BMW Z4 is more dynamic to drive. BMW Z4 engine produces 34 HP more power than Volvo C70, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Volvo C70. Thanks to more power BMW Z4 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 9.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 9.4 l/100km | |
|
The BMW Z4 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW Z4 consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C70, which means that by driving the BMW Z4 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW Z4 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C70. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 640 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| 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 Z4) 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: | 350'000 km | 510'000 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 C70 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW X3 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S40, Volvo V50, Volvo C30 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| BMW Z4 2009 2.5 engine: On this engine, the valve seals and crankcase breather valve diaphragm tend to fail after 80-100 000 km, leading to increased oil consumption. It is recommended to choose engines manufactured in the last years ... More about BMW Z4 2009 2.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.24 m | 4.62 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.29 m | 1.40 m | |
|
BMW Z4 is smaller. BMW Z4 is 38 cm shorter than the Volvo C70, 5 cm narrower, while the height of BMW Z4 is 11 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 180 litres | 200 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
310 litres | no data | |
| BMW Z4 has 20 litres less trunk space than the Volvo C70. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW Z4 is 1.1 metres less than that of the Volvo C70, which means BMW Z4 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`760 | 2`090 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 18 600 | 7800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW Z4 has
|
Volvo C70 has
| |