Last Update: Apr. 06, 2020, 5:51 a.m.
Home >>> >>> BMW Alpina and Mercedes-Benz M-Class

What is Better BMW Alpina or Mercedes-Benz M-Class?

Comparing BMW Alpina with Mercedes-Benz M-Class can help people make decision which vehicle is worth buying. When comparing the models, one can see 4 ideas that put BMW Alpina to first place compared to Mercedes-Benz M-Class. Anyway, Mercedes-Benz M-Class provides 8 important pluses that show it as a wonderful purchase instead of BMW Alpina. By comparing the most prominent specs, our team came up with key differences between BMW Alpina and Mercedes-Benz M-Class. It can help you decide on the suitable vehicle - compare two cars before paying money. The freshest ideas of BMW are hidden in Alpina. Drivers admit that Mercedes-Benz really did everything to turn M-Class into a real leader. Which of the vehicles in our match would you buy?


BMW Alpina Mercedes-Benz M-Class

4 reasons to buy BMW Alpina

Faster acceleration from 0 to 60 mph 7.4 sec. vs 8.7 sec. 1.3 sec.
More top speed 145 mph vs 130 mph 15 mph
Less CO2 emissions 97 g/mile vs 103 g/mile 6% or 6 g/mile
Other specs
Less weight 1460 kg vs 2150 kg 47% or 690 kg Weight of the vehicle affects: fuel consumption, acceleration dynamic, braking distance, etc.

8 reasons to buy Mercedes-Benz M-Class

Engine and transmission
More engine power

201 bhp vs 200 bhp

vs 147 kw.

0% or 1 bhp. More power of car = more top speed.
Fuel consumption
Less fuel consumption (Combined cycle) 47.2 mpg vs 47.87 mpg 1% or 0.7 mpg
Higher european emission standard EURO 6 vs EURO 4 2 generations
Weight and capacity
More minimum boot capacity 690 liters vs 460 liters 33% or 230 liters
More capacity of fuel tank 70 liters vs 61 liters 13% or 9 liters
More maximum towing weight without brakes 750 kg vs 745 kg 1% or 5 kg
More maximum towing weight with brakes 2950 kg vs 1600 kg 46% or 1350 kg
Other specs
Less turning radius 11 meters vs 11.1 meters 1% or 0.1 meters

Neutral reasons BMW Alpina vs. Mercedes-Benz M-Class

Engine and transmission
Engine capacity 1995 cm3 vs 2143 cm3 7% or 148 cm3 less
Fuel supply COMMON RAIL vs Common rail
Turbocharging Yes vs Yes
Speeds 6 vs 7 1 less
Length 4520 mm vs 4804 mm 6% or 284 mm shorter
Width 1817 mm vs 2141 mm 15% or 324 mm narrower
Wheels and tires
Wheelbase 2760 mm vs 2915 mm 5% or 155 mm less
*Specs may vary depending on configurations and year of production(taken parameters of last released versions)