2000 Chrysler ESX 3 vs. 2012 BMW 520
To start off, 2012 BMW 520 is newer by 12 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Chrysler ESX 3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 would be higher. At 1,995 cc (4 cylinders), 2012 BMW 520 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 BMW 520 (182 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 108 more horse power than 2000 Chrysler ESX 3. (74 HP @ 6400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 BMW 520 should accelerate faster than 2000 Chrysler ESX 3.
Because 2012 BMW 520 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2012 BMW 520. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Chrysler ESX 3, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 BMW 520 (380 Nm) has 48 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Chrysler ESX 3. (332 Nm). This means 2012 BMW 520 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Chrysler ESX 3.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chrysler ESX 3 | 2012 BMW 520 | |
Make | Chrysler | BMW |
Model | ESX 3 | 520 |
Year Released | 2000 | 2012 |
Body Type | Sedan | Station Wagon |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1499 cc | 1995 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 74 HP | 182 HP |
Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 332 Nm | 380 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | 8-speed shiftable automatic |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 4907 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1462 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3000 mm | 2968 mm |