BMW 4 Series Coupe (F32)
Car comparison
BMW 4 Series Coupe (F32) 428ivsAlfa Romeo 4C 1.7
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonAlfa Romeo 4C
1.7
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
BMW 4 Series Coupe (F32) 428i
- Fastest top speed260 km/h162 mph Unrestricted250 km/h155 mph Restricted
- Most powerful245 hp183 kW
- Highest torque350 Nm258 lb-ft
- Lowest combined fuel consumption6.4 L/100 km36.8 mpg US44.1 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption8.3 L/100 km28.3 mpg US34.0 mpg UK
- Best estimated range938 km583 mi
- Largest trunk445 L
- Best overall score59/100
- Best economy score90/100
- Best practicality score53/100
Alfa Romeo 4C 1.7
- Quickest 0-100 km/h4.5 s
- Lightest895 kg1,973 lb
- Best power-to-weight268 hp/t200 kW/t3.7 kg/hp
- Lowest highway consumption5.0 L/100 km47.0 mpg US56.5 mpg UK
- Best performance score67/100
Specification comparison
| Model | BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | Alfa Romeo4C1.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 245hp183kW | 240hp179kW |
| Torque | 350Nm258lb-ft | 350Nm258lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,470kg3,241lb | 895kg1,973lb |
| Gross weight | 1,990kg4,387lb | - |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 260 km/h162 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph Calculated | 258 km/h 160 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 78.6s99% target: 257 km/h / 160 mph Calculated | 52.1s99% target: 255 km/h / 159 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 5.8s | 4.5s |
| 0-200 km/h | 20.9s Calculated | 15.2s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 5.5s Calculated | 4.3s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 6.4L/100 km36.8mpg US44.1mpg UK | 6.8L/100 km34.6mpg US41.5mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 8.3L/100 km28.3mpg US34.0mpg UK | 9.8L/100 km24mpg US28.8mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 5.3L/100 km44.4mpg US53.3mpg UK | 5L/100 km47mpg US56.5mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 13.9s Calculated | 12.6s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 167hp/t124kW/t76hp/1000 lb Calculated | 268hp/t200kW/t122hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 238Nm/t159lb-ft/ton Calculated | 391Nm/t262lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 938km583mi Calculated | 588km366mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,997cc122cu in | 1,742cc106cu in |
| Length | 4,638mm183in | 3,989mm157in |
| Width | 1,825mm72in | 1,864mm73in |
| Height | 1,377mm54in | 1,183mm47in |
| Wheelbase | 2,810mm111in | 2,380mm94in |
| Front track | 1,545mm61in | 1,639mm65in |
| Rear track | 1,594mm63in | 1,604mm63in |
| Ground clearance | 130mm5in | 114mm4in |
| Trunk volume | 445L | 110L |
| Doors | 2 | 2 |
| Seats | 4 | 2 |
| Fuel tank | 60L | 40L |
| CO2 emissions | - | 157g/km |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- BMW 4 Series Coupe (F32) 428i: Power / Torque
- Alfa Romeo 4C 1.7: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | 5,000-6,500 rpm | 1,250-4,800 rpm | 6,750 rpm |
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 | 6,000 rpm | 2,200-4,250 rpm | 6,500 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | Alfa Romeo4C1.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 5.5 s | 4.3 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 5.8 s | 4.5 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 20.9 s | 15.2 s |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 260 km/h162 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph Limited | 258 km/h 160 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.3 s | 2.1 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.1 s | 5.5 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.1 s | 8.2 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 11.7 s | 10.6 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 13.9 s | 12.6 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 167 km/h 104 mph | 184 km/h 115 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | 245 hp 183 kW |
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 | 240 hp 179 kW |
BMW 4 Series Coupe (F32) 428i has 5 hp more than Alfa Romeo 4C 1.7.
The biggest power difference is between Alfa Romeo 4C 1.7 and BMW 4 Series Coupe (F32) 428i: 5 hp (4 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft |
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | 1,470 kg 3,241 lb |
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 | 895 kg 1,973 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | Unrestricted 260 km/h162 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph |
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 | 258 km/h 160 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | 5.8 s |
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 | 4.5 s |
Although BMW 4 Series Coupe (F32) 428i has more power, Alfa Romeo 4C 1.7 is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Alfa Romeo 4C 1.7 and BMW 4 Series Coupe (F32) 428i: 1.3 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 mpg UK |
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK |
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | 167 hp/t 124 kW/t 6.0 kg/hp |
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 | 268 hp/t 200 kW/t 3.7 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | 938 km 583 mi |
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 | 588 km 366 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | 245 hp 183 kW | 5.8 s | Unrestricted 260 km/h162 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph |
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 | 240 hp 179 kW | 4.5 s | 258 km/h 160 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i |
| 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 mpg UK | ||||||
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 |
| 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK | ||||||
Alfa Romeo 4C 1.7 is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 mpg UK | 5.8 s |
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK | 4.5 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | 167 hp/t 124 kW/t 6.0 kg/hp | 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 mpg UK |
| Alfa Romeo4C1.7 | 268 hp/t 200 kW/t 3.7 kg/hp | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | BMW4 Series Coupe (F32)428i | Alfa Romeo4C1.7 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 245 hp 183 kW | 240 hp 179 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 5.8 s | 4.5 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | Unrestricted 260 km/h162 mph Restricted 250 km/h155 mph | 258 km/h 160 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,470 kg 3,241 lb | 895 kg 1,973 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 6.4 L/100 km 36.8 mpg US 44.1 mpg UK | 6.8 L/100 km 34.6 mpg US 41.5 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 938 km 583 mi | 588 km 366 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | - | 157 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 445 L 15.7 cu ft | 110 L 3.9 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 167 hp/t 124 kW/t 6.0 kg/hp | 268 hp/t 200 kW/t 3.7 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | BMW 4 Series Coupe (F32) 428i | Alfa Romeo 4C 1.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 6.4 L/100 km36.8 mpg US44.1 mpg UK | 6.8 L/100 km34.6 mpg US41.5 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 11.20 LC100 km | 11.90 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 18.02 LC100 mi | 19.15 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 960 L254 US gal211 UK gal | 1,020 L269 US gal224 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,680 LC/year | 1,785 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
BMW 4 Series Coupe (F32) 428i
- Has 5 hp more
- Has 2 km/h (1 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 0.4 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 349 km (217 mi) more estimated range
- Has 335 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best estimated range
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Heaviest
Alfa Romeo 4C 1.7
- Is 575 kg lighter
- Is 1.3 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 101 hp/t better power-to-weight
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Lightest
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























