Volkswagen Vento 1992 vs Volvo 960 1990
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.9 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 204 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 267 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Volvo 960 is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Vento engine produces 114 HP less power than Volvo 960, whereas torque is 122 NM less than Volvo 960. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Vento reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 11.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 12.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Vento is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Vento consumes 3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 960, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Vento over 15,000 km in a year you can save 450 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Vento consumes 4.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 960. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volkswagen Vento) 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 (Volvo 960) 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: | 420'000 km | 480'000 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 Volvo 960 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Seat Toledo, Seat Ibiza, Seat Cordoba | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo S90, Volvo V90 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Vento might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.38 m | 4.87 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Volkswagen Vento is smaller, but slightly higher. Volkswagen Vento is 49 cm shorter than the Volvo 960, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Vento is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 491 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 9.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Vento is 0.8 metres more than that of the Volvo 960, which means Volkswagen Vento can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`200 | 1`960 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Vento has
|
Volvo 960 has
| |