2000 AC Aceca vs. 2009 BMW M3
To start off, 2009 BMW M3 is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 AC Aceca. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 AC Aceca would be higher. At 3,999 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 BMW M3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 BMW M3 (414 HP @ 8300 RPM) has 68 more horse power than 2000 AC Aceca. (346 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 BMW M3 should accelerate faster than 2000 AC Aceca. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 AC Aceca weights approximately 85 kg more than 2009 BMW M3.
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, both vehicles can yield 400 Nm of torque. So under normal driving conditions, the ability to climb up hills and pull heavy equipment should be relatively similar for both vehicles.
Compare all specifications:
2000 AC Aceca | 2009 BMW M3 | |
Make | AC | BMW |
Model | Aceca | M3 |
Year Released | 2000 | 2009 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3504 cc | 3999 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 346 HP | 414 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 8300 RPM |
Torque | 400 Nm | 400 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3900 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 8.0:1 | 12.0:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1610 kg | 1525 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4640 mm | 4620 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1420 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1810 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2300 mm | 2770 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 90 L | 63 L |