SAAB 9-3 2000 vs BMW 3 series 2001
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 10 seconds | |
| SAAB 9-3 engine produces 7 HP more power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 40 NM more than BMW 3 series. Despite the higher power, SAAB 9-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.2 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.1 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification SAAB 9-3 consumes 2.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the SAAB 9-3 could require 345 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, SAAB 9-3 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 3 series 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 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 | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on SAAB 9-5 | Used only for this car | |
| 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 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.26 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.41 m | |
| SAAB 9-3 is 38 cm longer than the BMW 3 series, 4 cm narrower, while the height of SAAB 9-3 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 310 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1100 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the SAAB 9-3 is 0.5 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means SAAB 9-3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`600 | 1`820 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| SAAB 9-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 85 percent more cases than SAAB 9-3, so SAAB 9-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 2600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.8/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
SAAB 9-3 has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |