Nissan X-Trail 2003 vs BMW X3 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 204 HP | |
| Torque: | 314 NM | 410 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
|
BMW X3 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan X-Trail engine produces 68 HP less power than BMW X3, whereas torque is 96 NM less than BMW X3. Due to the lower power, Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 9.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 9.8 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan X-Trail consumes 1.9 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 285 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan X-Trail consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan X-Trail 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: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 480'000 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 BMW X3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Nissan Almera, Nissan Primera, Nissan Almera Tino | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW X5 | |
| 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. | |||
| 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 2004 3.0 engine: The BMW M57 engine is regarded as one of the best German-built power units. Its inline-six layout is praised for reliability, and cars equipped with this engine are often more desirable on the used market. Despite delivering ... More about BMW X3 2004 3.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.51 m | 4.56 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.67 m | |
|
Nissan X-Trail is smaller, but slightly higher. Nissan X-Trail is 5 cm shorter than the BMW X3, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan X-Trail is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 480 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1841 litres | 1560 litres | |
| Nissan X-Trail has 70 litres less trunk space than the BMW X3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan X-Trail (by 281 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan X-Trail is 1.4 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`050 | 2`355 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| BMW X3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan X-Trail has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than BMW X3, so BMW X3 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
BMW X3 has
| |