BMW X3 vs Land Rover Range Rover: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the BMW X3 burns about $2,600 of fuel annually against $2,850 for the Land Rover Range Rover. That $250 yearly gap compounds to roughly $1,250 over five years and $2,000 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 and highway economy: the BMW X3 leads in both cycles — 27 mpg city and 33 mpg highway against 26 and 30 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the BMW X3 is recorded with 4 distinct engine configurations (SIDI & PFI; Mild Hybrid, SIDI, SIDI; Mild Hybrid), the Land Rover Range Rover with 4 (SIDI; Mild Hybrid, SIDI, SIDI; PHEV). Across 47 recorded BMW X3 configurations and 191 for the Land Rover Range Rover, 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 X3 is offered with All-Wheel Drive, Rear-Wheel Drive, the Land Rover Range Rover with 4-Wheel Drive, All-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 Small Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD and Standard Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Land Rover Range Rover emits 102 g/mile of CO2 versus 204 g/mile for the BMW X3. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.