2000 BMW M3 vs. 2004 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2004 MCC Crossblade is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 BMW M3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 BMW M3 would be higher. At 3,168 cc (6 cylinders), 2000 BMW M3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 BMW M3 (325 HP) has 255 more horse power than 2004 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2000 BMW M3 should accelerate faster than 2004 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 BMW M3 weights approximately 830 kg more than 2004 MCC Crossblade. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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, 2000 BMW M3 (350 Nm @ 4900 RPM) has 248 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 2000 BMW M3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 BMW M3 | 2004 MCC Crossblade | |
| Make | BMW | MCC |
| Model | M3 | Crossblade |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2004 |
| Engine Size | 3168 cc | 599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 325 HP | 70 HP |
| Torque | 350 Nm | 102 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4900 RPM | 3210 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1570 kg | 740 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 2630 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1630 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1520 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 1810 mm |
