2003 BMW M3 vs. 2004 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2004 MCC Crossblade is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 BMW M3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 BMW M3 would be higher. At 2,993 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 BMW M3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 BMW M3 (240 HP) has 170 more horse power than 2004 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2003 BMW M3 should accelerate faster than 2004 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 BMW M3 weights approximately 702 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, 2003 BMW M3 (300 Nm @ 4250 RPM) has 198 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 2003 BMW M3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 BMW M3 | 2004 MCC Crossblade | |
| Make | BMW | MCC |
| Model | M3 | Crossblade |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2004 |
| Engine Size | 2993 cc | 599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 240 HP | 70 HP |
| Torque | 300 Nm | 102 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4250 RPM | 3210 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1442 kg | 740 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4440 mm | 2630 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1630 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1340 mm | 1520 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 1810 mm |
