Honda Civic 1995 vs BMW 3 series 1993
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 160 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 153 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Honda Civic is more dynamic to drive. Honda Civic engine produces 58 HP more power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 3 NM more than BMW 3 series. Thanks to more power Honda Civic reaches 100 km/h speed 4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.5 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda Civic consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda Civic could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda Civic consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 52 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 530 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 650 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 520 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 3 series 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: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Honda Civic) 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 3 series) 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: | 440'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Honda CRX | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Honda Civic might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The BMW 3 series engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.19 m | 4.21 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.38 m | 1.39 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Honda Civic is 2 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, width is practically the same , while the height of Honda Civic is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 325 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1030 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`560 | 1`635 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Honda Civic has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Honda Civic, so Honda Civic quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.0/10 | 7.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda Civic has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |