Volvo V60 2010 vs Volkswagen Passat 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Volvo V60 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo V60 engine produces 58 HP more power than Volkswagen Passat, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Volkswagen Passat. Thanks to more power Volvo V60 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Passat is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo V60 consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Passat, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo V60 could require 225 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo V60 consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Passat. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 1140 km in combined cycle | |
| 1090 km on highway | 1320 km on highway | ||
| 790 km with real consumption | 1020 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Passat gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 380'000 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 Volkswagen Passat engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo V40 | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Skoda Yeti | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Passat might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen Passat engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.63 m | 4.77 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.52 m | |
| Volvo V60 is 15 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Passat, 5 cm wider, while the height of Volvo V60 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 603 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Passat has more luggage space. Volvo V60 has 173 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Passat. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.5 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V60 is 0.1 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Passat. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`100 | 2`090 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Volvo V60 scores higher in safety tests, but Volkswagen Passat is better rated in child safety tests. The Volvo V60 scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Volvo V60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Passat has serious deffects in 65 percent more cases than Volvo V60, so Volvo V60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7400 | 5400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.3/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V60 has
|
Volkswagen Passat has
| |