Volvo 940 1990 vs Ford Mondeo 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 1.8 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 122 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 177 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 13.6 seconds | |
|
Volvo 940 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo 940 engine produces 32 HP more power than Ford Mondeo, whereas torque is 63 NM more than Ford Mondeo. Thanks to more power Volvo 940 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo 940 consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo 940 could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo 940 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 930 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km with real consumption | 910 km with real consumption | ||
| 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 (Ford Mondeo) 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 940) 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: | 4.81 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.39 m | |
| Volvo 940 is 14 cm longer than the Ford Mondeo, width is practically the same , while the height of Volvo 940 is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 992 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2125 litres | 1610 litres | |
|
Volvo 940 has more luggage capacity. Volvo 940 has 452 litres more trunk space than the Ford Mondeo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo 940 (by 515 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.9 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo 940 is 0.4 metres less than that of the Ford Mondeo, which means Volvo 940 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`945 | 2`010 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | low | |
| Volvo 940 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 65 percent more cases than Volvo 940, so Volvo 940 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 2200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.9/10 | 8.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo 940 has
|
Ford Mondeo has
| |