2003 BMW X5 vs. 2012 Suzuki Equator
To start off, 2012 Suzuki Equator is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 BMW X5. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 BMW X5 would be higher. At 3,954 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 Suzuki Equator is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Suzuki Equator (261 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 46 more horse power than 2003 BMW X5. (215 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Suzuki Equator should accelerate faster than 2003 BMW X5. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 BMW X5 weights approximately 885 kg more than 2012 Suzuki Equator.
Because 2003 BMW X5 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2012 Suzuki Equator. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 BMW X5 will offer significantly more control. 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 X5 (500 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 119 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Suzuki Equator. (381 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2003 BMW X5 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Suzuki Equator.
Compare all specifications:
2003 BMW X5 | 2012 Suzuki Equator | |
Make | BMW | Suzuki |
Model | X5 | Equator |
Year Released | 2003 | 2012 |
Body Type | SUV | Pickup |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2983 cc | 3954 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 215 HP | 261 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5600 RPM |
Torque | 500 Nm | 381 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 18.0:1 | 9.5:1 |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2180 kg | 1295 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 5250 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1720 mm | 1790 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2840 mm | 3200 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 8 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 12 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.4 L/100km | 7.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 93 L | 80 L |