Alfa Romeo 156 2002 vs Volvo S40 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 305 NM | 215 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.4 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo 156 is more dynamic to drive. Alfa Romeo 156 engine produces 48 HP more power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 90 NM more than Volvo S40. Thanks to more power Alfa Romeo 156 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 5.6 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Alfa Romeo 156 could require 180 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| 950 km with real consumption | 1070 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 S40, 2 cm wider, while the height of Alfa Romeo 156 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 378 litres | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 853 litres | |
|
Volvo S40 has more luggage space. Alfa Romeo 156 has 93 litres less trunk space than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Alfa Romeo 156 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Volvo S40, which means Alfa Romeo 156 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`850 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Volvo S40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Alfa Romeo 156 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volvo S40, so Volvo S40 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Alfa Romeo 156 has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |