Alfa Romeo 156 2000 vs BMW 3 series 1991
Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
---|---|---|---|
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: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
Torque: | 181 NM | 190 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
Alfa Romeo 156 and BMW 3 series have the same engine power, but Alfa Romeo 156 torque is 9 NM less than BMW 3 series. Alfa Romeo 156 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 9.0 | |
Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 9.3 l/100km | |
The BMW 3 series is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that by driving the Alfa Romeo 156 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 65 litres | |
Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
950 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
610 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
Front-wheel drive cars (Alfa Romeo 156) 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: | 280'000 km | 420'000 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 3 series engine could be longer. | |||
Engine production duration: | 10 years | 7 years | |
Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Alfa Romeo 166, Alfa Romeo 147, Alfa Romeo Spider | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW Z3 | |
In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Alfa Romeo 156 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.43 m | 4.43 m | |
Width: | 1.74 m | 1.70 m | |
Height: | 1.42 m | 1.39 m | |
Alfa Romeo 156 and BMW 3 series are practically the same length. | |||
Trunk capacity: | 380 litres | 435 litres | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1200 litres | |
BMW 3 series has more luggage space. Alfa Romeo 156 has 55 litres less trunk space than the BMW 3 series. | |||
Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10 meters | |
The turning circle of the Alfa Romeo 156 is 1.1 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Alfa Romeo 156 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`760 | |
Safety: | no data | ||
Quality: | below average | below average | |
Alfa Romeo 156 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 105 percent more cases than Alfa Romeo 156, so Alfa Romeo 156 quality is probably significantly better | |||
Average price (€): | 1000 | 2200 | |
Rating in user reviews: | 6.2/10 | 7.2/10 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Alfa Romeo 156 has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |