Volvo 850 1993 vs BMW 3 series 2001
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 192 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 245 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Volvo 850 engine produces 22 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 25 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Volvo 850 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 9.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.7 l/100km | 10.4 l/100km | |
|
By specification Volvo 850 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that by driving the Volvo 850 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Volvo 850 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 73 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 660 km in combined cycle | |
| 680 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo 850 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 (Volvo 850) 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: | 560'000 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 Volvo 850 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S70 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW X3, BMW Z4 | |
| 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: | 4.71 m | 4.26 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Volvo 850 is larger. Volvo 850 is 45 cm longer than the BMW 3 series, 1 cm wider, while the height of Volvo 850 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 310 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1100 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo 850 is 0.2 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`600 | 1`930 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | BMW 3 series has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo 850 has serious deffects in 260 percent more cases than BMW 3 series, so BMW 3 series quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo 850 has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |