Nissan Pulsar 2014 vs Volvo V40 2016
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 6.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Pulsar engine produces 75 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 110 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Nissan Pulsar reaches 100 km/h speed 3.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.0 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 7.7 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Pulsar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Pulsar consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that by driving the Nissan Pulsar over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Pulsar consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 1120 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1340 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.39 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.44 m | |
| Nissan Pulsar is 2 cm longer than the Volvo V40, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Pulsar is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 385 litres | 335 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1395 litres | 1500 litres | |
| Nissan Pulsar has 50 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V40 (by 105 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Pulsar is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volvo V40, which means Nissan Pulsar can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | 1`975 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Pulsar has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7600 | 13 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Pulsar has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |