Alfa Romeo 156 2000 vs Volvo V40 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 304 NM | 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo 156 is more dynamic to drive. Alfa Romeo 156 engine produces 25 HP more power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 39 NM more than Volvo V40. Thanks to more power Alfa Romeo 156 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Alfa Romeo 156 could require 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 920 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1120 km on highway | 1390 km on highway | ||
| 950 km with real consumption | 1000 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 420'000 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 Alfa Romeo 156 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 2 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Carisma | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo V40 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Alfa Romeo 156 2000 2.4 engine: A simple and reliable engine, majority of problems are caused by fuel pump, electrical system and the oil pump drive chain. Volvo V40 2002 1.9 engine: Long-lasting and fuel-efficient engine. Maintaining oil change and maintenance intervals is essential for a long engine life, as poor or untimely oil changes can result in turbine and oil pump damage, followed ... More about Volvo V40 2002 1.9 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.43 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.41 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Alfa Romeo 156 is 5 cm shorter than the Volvo V40, 2 cm wider, while the height of Alfa Romeo 156 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 360 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1180 litres | 1420 litres | |
|
Volvo V40 has more luggage space. Alfa Romeo 156 has 53 litres less trunk space than the Volvo V40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V40 (by 240 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Alfa Romeo 156 is 1 metres more than that of the Volvo V40, which means Alfa Romeo 156 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`800 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Alfa Romeo 156 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.6/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Alfa Romeo 156 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |