Seat Alhambra 1996 vs BMW 3 series 2001
| Body: | Minivan / MPV | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 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: | 116 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17.2 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Seat Alhambra engine produces 27 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 30 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Seat Alhambra reaches 100 km/h speed 7.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.5 | 7.9 | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Seat Alhambra consumes 3.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Seat Alhambra could require 540 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| BMW 3 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Seat Alhambra) 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: | 580'000 km | 380'000 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 Seat Alhambra engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 6 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.62 m | 4.26 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.73 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Seat Alhambra is larger. Seat Alhambra is 36 cm longer than the BMW 3 series, 6 cm wider, while the height of Seat Alhambra is 32 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 310 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1100 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.7 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Seat Alhambra is 1.7 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Seat Alhambra can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`800 | 1`820 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| BMW 3 series has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Seat Alhambra has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than BMW 3 series, so BMW 3 series quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Seat Alhambra has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |