Volkswagen Golf 2012 vs BMW 3 series 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 210 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.3 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Golf is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Golf engine produces 40 HP more power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 70 NM more than BMW 3 series. Thanks to more power Volkswagen Golf reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 6.8 | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volkswagen Golf consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Golf could require 120 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 1120 km on highway | ||
| 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 (Volkswagen Golf) 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. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 130 mm (5.1 inches) | 138 mm (5.4 inches) | |
| BMW 3 sērija 2010 2.0 engine: The BMW N43 engine is built around a lightweight alloy cylinder block with a twin-cam, 16-valve head. It uses a dual-pump fuel delivery system—one located inside the tank to transfer fuel and supply the high-pressure pump, which then boosts fuel pressure up to 200 bar. Notably, the system lacks a fine fuel filter and relies only on a ... More about BMW 3 sērija 2010 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.25 m | 4.61 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.38 m | |
| Volkswagen Golf is 37 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, width is practically the same , while the height of Volkswagen Golf is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 250 litres | 210 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 350 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Golf has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, The BMW 3 series may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Golf is 0.9 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Volkswagen Golf can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`960 kg | 2`025 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`458 kg | 1`595 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 502 kg | 430 kg | |
| Volkswagen Golf load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 14 procentiem more than BMW 3 series. Therefore, Volkswagen Golf is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| BMW 3 series has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Volkswagen Golf, so BMW 3 series quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 6400 | 11 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Golf has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |