Volvo V50 2004 vs Mercedes C class 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.7 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Mercedes C class is a more dynamic driving. Volvo V50 engine produces 34 HP less power than Mercedes C class, whereas torque is 60 NM less than Mercedes C class. Due to the lower power, Volvo V50 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 7.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V50 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo V50 consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class, which means that by driving the Volvo V50 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo V50 consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 960 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 1190 km on highway | 1100 km on highway | ||
| 850 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V50 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo V50) 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 (Mercedes C class) 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: | 4.51 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.47 m | |
| Volvo V50 is 3 cm shorter than the Mercedes C class, 4 cm wider, while the height of Volvo V50 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 417 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1307 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V50 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mercedes C class. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`850 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 2000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.4/10 | 7.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V50 has
|
Mercedes C klase has
| |