Kia Ceed 2012 vs Volvo V40 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 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: | 135 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 164 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Kia Ceed engine produces 45 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 76 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Kia Ceed reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Kia Ceed is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Kia Ceed consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that by driving the Kia Ceed over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Kia Ceed consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 53 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 960 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 1140 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 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 Kia Ceed engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tucson, Hyundai Elantra, Hyundai i30 | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo V60 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Kia Ceed might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Kia Ceed 2012 1.6 engine: The engine is generally a reliable design and not particularly sensitive to fuel quality. However, it is prone to several common issues. One of the most widespread problems is the rapid buildup of carbon ... More about Kia Ceed 2012 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.31 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.44 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Kia Ceed is 6 cm shorter than the Volvo V40, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Kia Ceed is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 380 litres | 335 litres | |
|
Kia Ceed has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Kia Ceed has 45 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V40. The Volvo V40 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Kia Ceed is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volvo V40, which means Kia Ceed can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`870 | 1`920 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Kia Ceed has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Kia Ceed has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |