2003 BMW 645 vs. 2005 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2005 MCC Crossblade is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 BMW 645. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 BMW 645 would be higher. At 4,398 cc (8 cylinders), 2003 BMW 645 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 BMW 645 (325 HP) has 255 more horse power than 2005 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2003 BMW 645 should accelerate faster than 2005 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 BMW 645 weights approximately 946 kg more than 2005 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, 2003 BMW 645 (450 Nm @ 3600 RPM) has 348 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 2003 BMW 645 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 BMW 645 | 2005 MCC Crossblade | |
| Make | BMW | MCC |
| Model | 645 | Crossblade |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2005 |
| Engine Size | 4398 cc | 599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 325 HP | 70 HP |
| Torque | 450 Nm | 102 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 3210 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1690 kg | 744 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4830 mm | 2630 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1630 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1520 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 1810 mm |
