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 | 18 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. | |||
| BMW X3 2010 2.0 engine: Because of problems with the timing chain, which tends to stretch at 100,000 km, the BMW N47 engine is sometimes called the worst BMW engine. Replacing the timing chain also requires removing the engine from ... More about BMW X3 2010 2.0 engine | |||
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 | 12 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen C-Crosser has
|
BMW X3 has
| |