BMW Z4 2003 vs Volvo C70 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 192 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 245 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
BMW Z4 is more dynamic to drive. BMW Z4 engine produces 29 HP more power than Volvo C70, whereas torque is 15 NM more than Volvo C70. Thanks to more power BMW Z4 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 | 9.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.5 l/100km | 9.7 l/100km | |
|
The BMW Z4 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW Z4 consumes 0.8 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 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW Z4 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C70. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 570 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo C70 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.09 m | 4.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.30 m | 1.43 m | |
|
BMW Z4 is smaller. BMW Z4 is 63 cm shorter than the Volvo C70, 4 cm narrower, while the height of BMW Z4 is 13 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 262 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
260 litres | no data | |
|
Volvo C70 has more luggage space. BMW Z4 has 22 litres less trunk space than the Volvo C70. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW Z4 is 1.9 metres less than that of the Volvo C70, which means BMW Z4 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| 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): | 1`560 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Volvo C70 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for BMW Z4, so Volvo C70 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 8600 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW Z4 has
|
Volvo C70 has
| |