Volvo V50 2007 vs Kia Ceed 2011
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 128 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 255 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Kia Ceed is a more dynamic driving. Volvo V50 engine produces 18 HP less power than Kia Ceed, whereas torque is 15 NM less than Kia Ceed. Due to the lower power, Volvo V50 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.0 | 4.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.4 l/100km | 5.9 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V50 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Volvo V50 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Kia Ceed, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo V50 could require 75 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Volvo V50 consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Kia Ceed. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 53 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1040 km in combined cycle | 1170 km in combined cycle | |
| 1440 km on highway | 1260 km on highway | ||
| 960 km with real consumption | 890 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 320'000 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 V50 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S40, Volvo C30 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Hyundai i30, Hyundai Accent, Kia Venga | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Kia Ceed might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.52 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.53 m | |
| Volvo V50 is 3 cm longer than the Kia Ceed, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo V50 is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 417 litres | 534 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1664 litres | |
|
Kia Ceed has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Volvo V50 has 117 litres less trunk space than the Kia Ceed. This could mean that the Volvo V50 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V50 is 0.8 metres more than that of the Kia Ceed, which means Volvo V50 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`900 | 1`920 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Volvo V50 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Kia Ceed has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volvo V50, so Volvo V50 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 3800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V50 has
|
Kia Ceed has
| |