Seat Cordoba 1999 vs BMW 3 series 2001
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Coupe | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 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: | 100 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Seat Cordoba engine produces 16 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 30 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Seat Cordoba reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 7.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Seat Cordoba consumes 0.9 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 Cordoba could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Seat Cordoba consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 560 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km on highway | 1140 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| 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 Cordoba) 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: | 480'000 km | 350'000 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 Cordoba engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Octavia, Seat Ibiza, Seat Toledo | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Seat Cordoba might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Seat Cordoba 1999 1.6 engine: This is a simple and reliable engine with an impressive lifespan when properly maintained. However, many of its issues stem from air leaks, so checking hoses and the intake manifold is essential. The ignition ... More about Seat Cordoba 1999 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.16 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.37 m | |
|
Seat Cordoba is smaller, but higher. Seat Cordoba is 33 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, 12 cm narrower, while the height of Seat Cordoba is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 410 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`000 | 1`810 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Seat Cordoba has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Seat Cordoba, so Seat Cordoba quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Seat Cordoba has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |