Volkswagen Caddy 2004 vs Volkswagen Sharan 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 126 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17.9 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Sharan is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Caddy engine produces 75 HP less power than Volkswagen Sharan, whereas torque is 84 NM less than Volkswagen Sharan. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Caddy reaches 100 km/h speed 7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.9 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Caddy is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Caddy consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Caddy over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Caddy consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 370'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volkswagen Sharan engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Octavia, Skoda Fabia, Audi A2 | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A4, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Sharan might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Volkswagen Caddy 2004 1.4 engine: Engine is known for its simplicity, compact design, and overall reliability. Many complaints from owners are related to power loss or fluctuating idle, often caused by issues with the throttle body, EGR valve, or air leaks ... More about Volkswagen Caddy 2004 1.4 engine Volkswagen Sharan 2000 1.8 engine: The weakest link in this engine is the turbine, whose failure is contributed to by a faulty catalytic converter. The oil pump and chain tensioner also tend to have problems. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.40 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.83 m | 1.73 m | |
|
Volkswagen Caddy is smaller, but higher. Volkswagen Caddy is 23 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Sharan, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Caddy is 10 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 560 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2239 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Caddy is 0.4 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Sharan, which means Volkswagen Caddy can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 1`900 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Volkswagen Caddy has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Sharan has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Volkswagen Caddy, so Volkswagen Caddy quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 2200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.8/10 | 6.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Caddy has
|
Volkswagen Sharan has
| |