Volvo XC60 2008 vs BMW X3 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 3.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 285 HP | 258 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 310 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.5 seconds | 6.9 seconds | |
| Volvo XC60 engine produces 27 HP more power than BMW X3, whereas torque is 90 NM more than BMW X3. Despite the higher power, Volvo XC60 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.9 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.1 l/100km | 11.1 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC60 consumes 2.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo XC60 could require 435 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC60 consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 780 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 570 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW X3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 230 mm (9.1 inches) | 212 mm (8.3 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC60 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 3 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo S80 | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW X5, BMW 7 sērija, BMW 1 sērija | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW X3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| BMW X3 2010 3.0 engine: The BMW N52 engine was the first water-cooled engine to feature a composite cylinder block made from a magnesium and aluminum alloy. It was included in Ward’s AutoWorld’s list of the top 10 engines in 2006 and 2007. While it offers many advantages, the ... More about BMW X3 2010 3.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.63 m | 4.65 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.66 m | |
| Volvo XC60 is 2 cm shorter than the BMW X3, width is practically the same , while the height of Volvo XC60 is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 495 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1455 litres | 1600 litres | |
|
BMW X3 has more luggage space. Volvo XC60 has 55 litres less trunk space than the BMW X3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in BMW X3 (by 145 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC60 is 0.2 metres more than that of the BMW X3. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`440 | 2`305 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Volvo XC60 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for BMW X3, so Volvo XC60 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 9000 | 12 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC60 has
|
BMW X3 has
| |