Volkswagen Golf 2011 vs BMW 3 series 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 184 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 8.4 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Golf engine produces 79 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 130 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Golf reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.4 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.3 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Golf is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Golf consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Golf over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Golf consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 61 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1240 km in combined cycle | 1080 km in combined cycle | |
| 1340 km on highway | 1290 km on highway | ||
| 1030 km with real consumption | 950 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Golf 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: Because of problems with the timing chain, which tends to stretch at 100,000 km, the BMW N47 engine is sometimes called the worst BMW engine. Replacing the timing chain also requires removing the engine from ... 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 |
no data | 350 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Golf has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Volkswagen Golf has 40 litres more trunk space than the BMW 3 series. 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 | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Golf is 0.1 metres less than that of the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`920 | 2`100 | |
| 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 (€): | 6200 | 11 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Golf has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |