Volvo V40 2002 vs Volvo S40 2006
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.8 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 | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 265 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo V40 engine produces 10 HP less power than Volvo S40, but torque is 100 NM more than Volvo S40. Despite less power, Volvo V40 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo V40 consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that by driving the Volvo V40 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 300 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo V40 consumes 2.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 1390 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 1000 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Carisma | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V50, Volvo C30 | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.45 m | |
| Volvo V40 is 1 cm longer than the Volvo S40, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo V40 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 404 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1420 litres | 883 litres | |
| Volvo V40 has 9 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V40 (by 537 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V40 is 0.4 metres less than that of the Volvo S40, which means Volvo V40 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`800 | 1`850 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Volvo S40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo V40 has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Volvo S40, so Volvo S40 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 2400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.4/10 | 8.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V40 has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |