Volvo 850 1996 vs BMW 3 series 1991
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
| 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: | 140 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 290 NM | 222 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Volvo 850 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo 850 engine produces 25 HP more power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 68 NM more than BMW 3 series. Thanks to more power Volvo 850 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo 850 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo 850 consumes 0.8 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 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo 850 consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 73 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1100 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 1400 km on highway | 1140 km on highway | ||
| 1100 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo 850 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 | 480'000 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: | 6 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S70 | Used also on BMW 5 sērija | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.43 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.39 m | |
|
Volvo 850 is larger. Volvo 850 is 24 cm longer than the BMW 3 series, 6 cm wider, while the height of Volvo 850 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 445 litres | 435 litres | |
| Volvo 850 has 10 litres more trunk space than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo 850 is 0.6 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Volvo 850 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`960 | 1`815 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Volvo 850 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volvo 850, so Volvo 850 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 2600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.5/10 | 7.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo 850 has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |