Mercedes C class 2002 vs Volvo V50 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mercedes C class is more dynamic to drive. Mercedes C class engine produces 38 HP more power than Volvo V50, whereas torque is 75 NM more than Volvo V50. Thanks to more power Mercedes C class reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 7.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.0 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V50 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mercedes C class consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V50, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mercedes C class could require 285 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mercedes C class consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V50. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V50 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo V50) 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 | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 460'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mercedes E klase, Mercedes CLK, Mercedes SLK | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo S40, Volvo C30 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mercedes C class might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| 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. | |||
| Mercedes C klase 2002 1.8 engine: The most notable issue with this engine is the sticking of exhaust valves due to carbon buildup. Another significant problem is the unreliable timing chain, which can stretch by 100,000 km. Early symptoms of a ... More about Mercedes C klase 2002 1.8 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.54 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.73 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.45 m | |
| Mercedes C class is 3 cm longer than the Volvo V50, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mercedes C class is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 417 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1307 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mercedes C class is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volvo V50. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`500 | 1`890 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 2000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.6/10 | 6.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mercedes C klase has
|
Volvo V50 has
| |