Nissan 200 SX 1997 vs Volvo V40 2016
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 265 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.3 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Nissan 200 SX is more dynamic to drive. Nissan 200 SX engine produces 78 HP more power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 45 NM more than Volvo V40. Thanks to more power Nissan 200 SX reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 | 5.4 | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Nissan 200 SX consumes 3.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Nissan 200 SX could require 525 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 1140 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 1400 km on highway | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo V40) 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 (Nissan 200 SX) 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.73 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.30 m | 1.44 m | |
| Nissan 200 SX is 15 cm longer than the Volvo V40, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan 200 SX is 14 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 307 litres | 335 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1500 litres | |
|
Volvo V40 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Nissan 200 SX has 28 litres less trunk space than the Volvo V40. This could mean that the Nissan 200 SX uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan 200 SX is 1.2 metres less than that of the Volvo V40, which means Nissan 200 SX can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`780 | 1`965 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 12 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan 200 SX has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |