Volkswagen Passat 2010 vs Volvo V60 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 122 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Volvo V60 is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Passat engine produces 58 HP less power than Volvo V60, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Volvo V60. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Passat reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.1 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Passat is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Passat consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V60, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Passat over 15,000 km in a year you can save 225 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Passat consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1140 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 1320 km on highway | 1090 km on highway | ||
| 1020 km with real consumption | 790 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Passat gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volkswagen Passat engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Skoda Yeti | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo V40 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Passat might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volkswagen Passat engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.77 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.48 m | |
| Volkswagen Passat is 15 cm longer than the Volvo V60, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Passat is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 603 litres | 430 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Passat has more luggage capacity. Volkswagen Passat has 173 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V60. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Passat is 0.1 metres less than that of the Volvo V60. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`090 | 2`100 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Volvo V60 scores higher in safety tests. The Volvo V60 scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Volvo V60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Passat has serious deffects in 65 percent more cases than Volvo V60, so Volvo V60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 7600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 9.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Passat has
|
Volvo V60 has
| |