BMW X3 F25 xDrive30d 258HP automatic 4x4 vs Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual

Source: wikipedia.org M 93 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany

Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual

Source: wikipedia.org Robert Basic Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

9 reasons for

BMW X3 F25, model available from 2010.
It has xDrive30d 258HP ic diesel engine produced from 2010.
Drive 4x4 has automatic gearbox.

6 reasons for

Ford Ecosport II, model available from 2013.
It has 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP petrol engine produced from 2013.
Drive on the front axle has manual, 5 speed gearbox.

Source: wikipedia.org Robert Basic Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

9 reasons for BMW X3 F25 xDrive30d 258KM automat 4x4 in comparison to Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual

Reasons for

135

Maximal power

258 > 125 hp

The Ford Ecosport II noticeably gives way to the BMW in the field of amount of horses under the hood having them by 106 percent less. Therefore the engine of the BMW X3 F25, as opposed to the Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual, provides lots of power and good acceleration.

Add a comment

Acceleration 0-100 km/h

6.2 > 12.7 s

The BMW X3 F25 accelerates to 100k\h 6.5 s quicker than the Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual. A noticable difference in acceleration in favor of the BMW X3 F25 will allow him to overtake much faster and avoid other obstacles.

Add a comment

Top speed

230 > 180 km/h

The BMW X3 F25 has by 50 kilometers/hour higher top speed in comparison to the Ford Ecosport II, consequently a long route, for example when it is straight and there is no speed limits, can be covered in much more shorter period of time. The difference might be perceptible during travelling on highways.

Add a comment

Wheelbase

2,809 > 2,521 mm

BMW X3 F25 xDrive30d 258HP automatic 4x4 has 11 % longer wheelbase than the Ford Ecosport II. A longer wheelbase gives more stable and comfortable ride, especially at higher speeds. It also provides more storage space. But, vehicles with a longer wheelbase will not be as maneuverable as those with a shorter wheelbase.

Add a comment

Cylinders

6 > 3

Add a comment

Engine capacity

2,992 > 1,000 cc

Evidently the BMW wins in this category. The difference at the level of 199 % compared to the Ford Ecosport II. It is interesting that in „compact SUV” segment, from which the BMW X3 F25 xDrive30d 258HP automatic 4x4 comes from, the average engine displacement equals 2,104 cubic centimeters and the biggest cubic capacity in this class amounts to 4,201 .

Add a comment

Length

4,652 > 4,244 mm

The BMW X3 F25 is 10 % longer in relation to the Ford Ecosport II. Long cars have roomy cabin and also have more storage space. Although the BMW seems to be better choice for families or those who appreciate convenient driving that make them feel fresh and relaxed upon arriving, the Ford Ecosport II may appeal to the young because it will not make problems with parking and will be easier for turning in narrow streets.

Add a comment

Price range

luxury > popular

Add a comment

Transmission

automatic > manual

For a comfortable ride around town, it is good to have an automatic however the type of transmisison can have a big impact on fuel efficiency. Automatics may consume around from 5 to 10% more than manuals.

Add a comment

Reasons for

112

Average consumption

5.3 > 5.8 l

The Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual uses 0.5 l less in the combined cycle than the BMW X3 F25. The difference at the level of 0.5 l is not very appreciable. However during a longer period of time it can generate a substantial cost reduction.

Add a comment

Urban consumption

6.8 > 7 l

The Ford Ecosport II consumes 3 percent fewer petrol in city traffic than the BMW X3 F25 xDrive30d 258HP automatic 4x4. The Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual, which represents compact SUV segment, consumes 2.8 l less petrol. Interesting is that average fuel consumption in the urban for the small off-road 4x4 class is 9.6 l, while the Ford Ecosport II 1.0 Ecoboost 125HP manual uses by 29 % less fuel than the average.

Add a comment

Extra-urban consumption

4.7 > 5.5 l

Add a comment

Width

2,057 > 1,881 mm

Width of a car affects room in the cabin and also stability during driving. The Ford Ecosport II is widther only by 176 mm in comparison to the BMW and is not really relevant. The average for the „small off-road 4x4” segment is around 1,797 mm and is by 14 % larger than the width of the Ford Ecosport II.

Add a comment

Model release date

2013 > 2010

The difference in date of commencement of production between compared vehicles is only 3 years, however, new technologies for vehicles are appearing at a blistering pace and for that reason the Ford may have more modern technologies thanks to which everyday usage of it may be more comfortable.

Add a comment

Height

1,696 > 1,676 mm

The higher a vehicle is, the better is the comfort of boarding it and greater capacity of carrying massive amount of thinks to it. The difference at the level of 1 percent in favor of the Ford Ecosport II is not big and does not matter much.

Add a comment