1998 BMW 316 vs. 2001 Ford Econovan
To start off, 2001 Ford Econovan is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1998 BMW 316. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1998 BMW 316 would be higher. At 1,996 cc (4 cylinders), 2001 Ford Econovan is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1998 BMW 316 (103 HP @ 5300 RPM) has 7 more horse power than 2001 Ford Econovan. (96 HP @ 4800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1998 BMW 316 should accelerate faster than 2001 Ford Econovan. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2001 Ford Econovan weights approximately 85 kg more than 1998 BMW 316.
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, 1998 BMW 316 (165 Nm @ 2500 RPM) has 10 more torque (in Nm) than 2001 Ford Econovan. (155 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 1998 BMW 316 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2001 Ford Econovan.
Compare all specifications:
| 1998 BMW 316 | 2001 Ford Econovan | |
| Make | BMW | Ford |
| Model | 316 | Econovan |
| Year Released | 1998 | 2001 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Van |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1895 cc | 1996 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 103 HP | 96 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5300 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Torque | 165 Nm | 155 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 2500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1360 kg | 1445 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4480 mm | 4290 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1750 mm | 1640 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1870 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 2210 mm |
