Nissan X-Trail 2003 vs BMW X3 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Nissan X-Trail) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (BMW X3) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 165 HP | 218 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 500 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 7.7 seconds | |
|
BMW X3 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan X-Trail engine produces 53 HP less power than BMW X3, whereas torque is 270 NM less than BMW X3. Due to the lower power, Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 3.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.6 | 8.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.5 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan X-Trail consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan X-Trail could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan X-Trail consumes 2.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 750 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 520 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW X3 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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 25 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Nissan Sentra | 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. | |||
| 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 2005 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 2005 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`000 | 2`355 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | average | |
| BMW X3 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Nissan X-Trail, so BMW X3 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
BMW X3 has
| |