Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2011 vs BMW X3 2011
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 240 HP | 184 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.6 seconds | 8.3 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is more dynamic to drive. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque engine produces 56 HP more power than BMW X3, whereas torque is 70 NM more than BMW X3. Thanks to more power Land Rover Range Rover Evoque reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.8 l/100km | 9.8 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover Evoque consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque could require 180 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 890 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 300'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Land Rover Freelander, Land Rover Discovery Sport, Jaguar XJ, Jaguar XF | Installed on at least 8 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The BMW X3 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. | |||
| BMW X3 2011 2.0 engine: Until 2015, engines used to have problems with the timing chain guides, which have been resolved over time. Other problems with this engine are the oil pump performance and its drive chain, as well as cracking ... More about BMW X3 2011 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.36 m | 4.65 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.64 m | 1.66 m | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 29 cm shorter than the BMW X3, 1 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 575 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1600 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has 25 litres more trunk space than the BMW X3. The BMW X3 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 0.6 metres less than that of the BMW X3, which means Land Rover Range Rover Evoque can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`350 | 2`285 | |
| Safety: | |||
| BMW X3 is better rated in child safety tests. The Land Rover Range Rover Evoque scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 13 800 | 12 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
|
BMW X3 has
| |