Mitsubishi Lancer 2004 vs Volvo S40 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.9 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 98 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Lancer engine produces 67 HP less power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 90 NM less than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Lancer reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 7.9 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Lancer is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Lancer consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Lancer over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
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`780 | |
| 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
| |