Mitsubishi Lancer 2004 vs Volvo S40 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Mitsubishi Lancer) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Volvo S40) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 98 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Lancer engine produces 17 HP less power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 115 NM less than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Lancer reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 5.5 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Lancer consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Lancer could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Lancer consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 1390 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 1090 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Space Star | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volvo V40, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Mitsubishi Carisma | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mitsubishi Lancer 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. | |||
| Volvo S40 2002 1.9 engine: Long-lasting and fuel-efficient engine. Maintaining oil change and maintenance intervals is essential for a long engine life, as poor or untimely oil changes can result in turbine and oil pump damage, followed ... More about Volvo S40 2002 1.9 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.41 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi Lancer and Volvo S40 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 853 litres | |
|
Volvo S40 has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Lancer has 41 litres less trunk space than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.7/10 | 8.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Lancer has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |