Nissan X-Trail 2010 vs BMW X3 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 245 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 6.7 seconds | |
|
BMW X3 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan X-Trail engine produces 95 HP less power than BMW X3, whereas torque is 30 NM less than BMW X3. Due to the lower power, Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 4.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 11.2 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan X-Trail consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3, which means that by driving the Nissan X-Trail over 15,000 km in a year you can save 165 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan X-Trail consumes 3.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 890 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan X-Trail gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Opel Vivaro | 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. Nissan X-Trail might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Nissan X-Trail 2010 2.0 engine: The engine has a good power to fuel consumption ratio and, with careful maintenance, a long service life. The most common problems with these engines are with the fuel injection system and lubrication. BMW X3 2012 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 2012 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.65 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.66 m | |
|
Nissan X-Trail is smaller, but slightly higher. Nissan X-Trail is 1 cm shorter than the BMW X3, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan X-Trail is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 479 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1600 litres | |
|
BMW X3 has more luggage space. Nissan X-Trail has 71 litres less trunk space than the BMW X3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan X-Trail is 1.1 metres less than that of the BMW X3, which means Nissan X-Trail can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`170 | 2`310 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 8600 | 12 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
BMW X3 has
| |