Volvo C70 2009 vs BMW Z4 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.5 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: | 170 HP | 204 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 7.3 seconds | |
|
BMW Z4 is a more dynamic driving. Volvo C70 engine produces 34 HP less power than BMW Z4, whereas torque is 20 NM less than BMW Z4. Due to the lower power, Volvo C70 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.6 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 9.3 l/100km | |
|
The BMW Z4 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo C70 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW Z4, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo C70 could require 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo C70 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW Z4. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo C70) 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 Z4) 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: | 510'000 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 Volvo C70 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S40, Volvo V50, Volvo C30 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW X3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| BMW Z4 2009 2.5 engine: On this engine, the valve seals and crankcase breather valve diaphragm tend to fail after 80-100 000 km, leading to increased oil consumption. It is recommended to choose engines manufactured in the last years ... More about BMW Z4 2009 2.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.62 m | 4.24 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.29 m | |
|
Volvo C70 is larger. Volvo C70 is 38 cm longer than the BMW Z4, 5 cm wider, while the height of Volvo C70 is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 200 litres | 180 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 310 litres | |
| Volvo C70 has 20 litres more trunk space than the BMW Z4. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo C70 is 1.1 metres more than that of the BMW Z4, which means Volvo C70 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`090 | 1`760 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 9600 | 18 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo C70 has
|
BMW Z4 has
| |