Volkswagen Passat 1983 vs Volvo S40 2001
| Body: | Hatchback | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 167 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Passat engine produces 30 HP less power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 22 NM less than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Passat reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 10.0 | |
|
The Volkswagen Passat is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volkswagen Passat consumes 2.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Passat over 15,000 km in a year you can save 315 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 600 km in combined cycle | |
| Volkswagen Passat gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo S40) 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 (Volkswagen Passat) 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 420'000 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 Passat engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Audi 80, Audi Coupe | Used also on Volvo V40 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Passat might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volkswagen Passat 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.84 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.41 m | |
| Volkswagen Passat is 36 cm longer than the Volvo S40, width is practically the same , while the height of Volkswagen Passat is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 853 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Passat has more luggage capacity. Volkswagen Passat has 29 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Passat is 0.2 metres less than that of the Volvo S40. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`200 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 600 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Passat has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |