SAAB 9-3 2003 vs BMW Z4 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 210 HP | 192 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 245 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 seconds | 7 seconds | |
| SAAB 9-3 engine produces 18 HP more power than BMW Z4, whereas torque is 55 NM more than BMW Z4. Despite the higher power, SAAB 9-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 8.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 9.5 l/100km | |
|
By specification SAAB 9-3 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW Z4, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the SAAB 9-3 could require 30 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, SAAB 9-3 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW Z4. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 790 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 570 km with real consumption | ||
| SAAB 9-3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (SAAB 9-3) 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: | 370'000 km | 440'000 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 Z4 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. | |||
| SAAB 9-3 2003 2.0 engine: The Saab B207 engine is essentially identical to the Opel Z20NET and is based on a 2.2-liter naturally aspirated predecessor. It is a simple and reliable engine, even less demanding than its predecessor. However, it has some notable weaknesses.
The timing and balance shaft chains have a limited lifespan and often stretch before reaching 200,000 km. The ... More about SAAB 9-3 2003 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.09 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.30 m | |
| SAAB 9-3 is 55 cm longer than the BMW Z4, 2 cm narrower, while the height of SAAB 9-3 is 13 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 235 litres | 240 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 260 litres | |
| SAAB 9-3 has 5 litres less trunk space than the BMW Z4. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the SAAB 9-3 is 1.2 metres more than that of the BMW Z4, which means SAAB 9-3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`090 | 1`560 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| SAAB 9-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW Z4 has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than SAAB 9-3, so SAAB 9-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
SAAB 9-3 has
|
BMW Z4 has
| |