Volvo XC60 2013 vs BMW X3 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 2.0 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: | 215 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 440 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.3 seconds | 8.1 seconds | |
| Volvo XC60 engine produces 25 HP more power than BMW X3, whereas torque is 40 NM more than BMW X3. Despite the higher power, Volvo XC60 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 5.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC60 consumes 1.2 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 180 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC60 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1090 km in combined cycle | 1280 km in combined cycle | |
| 1320 km on highway | 1340 km on highway | ||
| 850 km with real consumption | 880 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) | 204 mm (8 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: | 460'000 km | 330'000 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 XC60 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo XC70 | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija, BMW 2 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.66 m | |
| Volvo XC60 is 1 cm shorter than the BMW X3, 1 cm wider, 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: | 11.7 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC60 is 0.2 metres less than that of the BMW X3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`270 | 2`365 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW X3 has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 16 000 | 20 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC60 has
|
BMW X3 has
| |