1988 BMW 520 vs. 2012 Suzuki Equator
To start off, 2012 Suzuki Equator is newer by 24 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1988 BMW 520. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1988 BMW 520 would be higher. At 3,954 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 Suzuki Equator is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Suzuki Equator (262 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 133 more horse power than 1988 BMW 520. (129 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Suzuki Equator should accelerate faster than 1988 BMW 520. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1988 BMW 520 weights approximately 505 kg more than 2012 Suzuki Equator.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2012 Suzuki Equator (381 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 207 more torque (in Nm) than 1988 BMW 520. (174 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2012 Suzuki Equator will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1988 BMW 520.
Compare all specifications:
1988 BMW 520 | 2012 Suzuki Equator | |
Make | BMW | Suzuki |
Model | 520 | Equator |
Year Released | 1988 | 2012 |
Body Type | Sedan | Pickup |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1989 cc | 3954 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 129 HP | 262 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5600 RPM |
Torque | 174 Nm | 381 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 10.5:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1570 kg | 1065 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4780 mm | 5600 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1810 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1790 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2770 mm | 3560 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 7.8 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.5 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.9 L/100km | 7.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 80 L |