Volvo V40 2002 vs Mercedes C class 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 2.7 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 265 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Mercedes C class is a more dynamic driving. Volvo V40 engine produces 55 HP less power than Mercedes C class, whereas torque is 135 NM less than Mercedes C class. Due to the lower power, Volvo V40 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 7.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo V40 consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class, which means that by driving the Volvo V40 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 255 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo V40 consumes 1.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 1390 km on highway | 1100 km on highway | ||
| 1000 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo V40) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mercedes C class) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Carisma | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mercedes E klase, Mercedes ML, Mercedes G klase | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo V40 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mercedes C class 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: | 4.48 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Volvo V40 is smaller. Volvo V40 is 6 cm shorter than the Mercedes C class, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo V40 is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1420 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V40 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mercedes C class. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`800 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mercedes C class has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.4/10 | 7.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V40 has
|
Mercedes C klase has
| |