Ford Mondeo 2000 vs BMW 3 series 1993
| Body: | Sedan | Cabrio | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Double-row timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 245 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.8 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Ford Mondeo engine produces 60 HP less power than BMW 3 series, but torque is 55 NM more than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 9.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 9.3 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 3.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that by driving the Ford Mondeo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 480 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 2.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 940 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 820 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Mondeo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Ford Mondeo) 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: | 350'000 km | 560'000 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: | 5 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on BMW 5 sērija | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW 3 series might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.73 m | 4.43 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.35 m | |
|
Ford Mondeo is larger. Ford Mondeo is 30 cm longer than the BMW 3 series, 10 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 230 litres | |
|
Ford Mondeo has more luggage capacity. Ford Mondeo has 270 litres more trunk space than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 1.1 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Ford Mondeo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`980 | 1`810 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| BMW 3 series has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than BMW 3 series, so BMW 3 series quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 7800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.5/10 | 7.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |