Volvo C70 2009 vs Mazda MX-5 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 160 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 188 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 7.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda MX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Volvo C70 engine produces 20 HP less power than Mazda MX-5, but torque is 32 NM more than Mazda MX-5. Due to the lower power, Volvo C70 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.8 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda MX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo C70 consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda MX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo C70 could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo C70 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda MX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 840 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo C70 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo C70) 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 (Mazda MX-5) 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. | |||
| Mazda MX-5 2009 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.62 m | 4.02 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.26 m | |
|
Volvo C70 is larger. Volvo C70 is 59 cm longer than the Mazda MX-5, 12 cm wider, while the height of Volvo C70 is 15 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 200 litres | 150 litres | |
|
Volvo C70 has more luggage capacity. Volvo C70 has 50 litres more trunk space than the Mazda MX-5. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo C70 is 1.8 metres more than that of the Mazda MX-5, which means Volvo C70 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`070 | 1`375 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 9600 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo C70 has
|
Mazda MX-5 has
| |