Citroen C-Crosser 2007 vs BMW X3 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 156 HP | 184 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
|
BMW X3 is a more dynamic driving. Citroen C-Crosser engine produces 28 HP less power than BMW X3, the torque is the same for both cars. Due to the lower power, Citroen C-Crosser reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen C-Crosser consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen C-Crosser could require 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen C-Crosser consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 1190 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1260 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 900 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW X3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 174 mm (6.9 inches) | 212 mm (8.3 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, BMW X3 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: | 480'000 km | 330'000 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 Citroen C-Crosser engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi Outlander, Peugeot 4007 | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X1 | |
| 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: | 4.65 m | 4.65 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.66 m | |
| Citroen C-Crosser and BMW X3 are practically the same length. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 184 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 184 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 441 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1686 litres | 1600 litres | |
| In 5-seat version BMW X3 has more luggage space (by 109 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Citroen C-Crosser (by 86 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen C-Crosser is 0.3 metres more than that of the BMW X3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`410 | 2`300 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 6400 | 13 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen C-Crosser has
|
BMW X3 has
| |