BMW 5 series 1992 vs Volvo 850 1994
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 126 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.4 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
| BMW 5 series engine produces 24 HP more power than Volvo 850, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Volvo 850. Thanks to more power BMW 5 series reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.8 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.2 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo 850 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 5 series consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW 5 series could require 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 5 series consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 73 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 710 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo 850) 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 5 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 | 480'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo 850 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.72 m | 4.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.43 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. BMW 5 series and Volvo 850 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 460 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1580 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 5 series is 0.4 metres more than that of the Volvo 850, which means BMW 5 series can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`100 | 1`900 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Volvo 850 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for BMW 5 series, so Volvo 850 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.1/10 | 8.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 5 sērija has
|
Volvo 850 has
| |