BMW 3 Series vs Kia Forte: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Kia Forte burns about $1,750 of fuel annually against $2,200 for the BMW 3 Series. That $450 yearly gap compounds to roughly $2,250 over five years and $3,600 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City versus highway split: the Kia Forte is the stronger commuter at 31 mpg city, while the BMW 3 Series pulls ahead on the interstate at 43 mpg highway. If most of your driving is stop-and-go traffic the city figure is the one to weigh; for long-distance highway mileage the reverse is true, and the two vehicles effectively swap places depending on how you drive.

Powertrain choice: the BMW 3 Series is recorded with 4 distinct engine configurations (SIDI & PFI; Mild Hybrid, SIDI, SIDI; PHEV), the Kia Forte with 3 (SIDI, 2.0, 1.8). Across 105 recorded BMW 3 Series configurations and 60 for the Kia Forte, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the BMW 3 Series is offered with Rear-Wheel Drive, All-Wheel Drive, the Kia Forte with Front-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Compact Cars and Midsize Cars respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the BMW 3 Series emits 158 g/mile of CO2 versus 256 g/mile for the Kia Forte. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.