Mitsubishi Carisma 1996 vs Volvo S40 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 NM | 215 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.2 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Carisma engine produces 12 HP less power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 39 NM less than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Carisma reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 5.6 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Carisma could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| 1010 km with real consumption | 1070 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.45 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.41 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi Carisma is 4 cm shorter than the Volvo S40, 1 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 460 litres | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
430 litres | 853 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma has 11 litres less trunk space than the Volvo S40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo S40 (by 423 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Carisma is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volvo S40, which means Mitsubishi Carisma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`675 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Volvo S40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Carisma has serious deffects in 265 percent more cases than Volvo S40, so Volvo S40 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 8.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Carisma has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |