Chrysler 300C 2005 vs Volvo S80 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 218 HP | 175 HP | |
| Torque: | 510 NM | 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.6 seconds | 9.5 seconds | |
|
Chrysler 300C is more dynamic to drive. Chrysler 300C engine produces 43 HP more power than Volvo S80, whereas torque is 90 NM more than Volvo S80. Thanks to more power Chrysler 300C reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.1 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.1 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S80 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler 300C consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S80, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler 300C could require 225 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler 300C consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S80. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 68 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 1060 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1370 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 930 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S80 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo S80) 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 (Chrysler 300C) 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. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 143 mm (5.6 inches) | 148 mm (5.8 inches) | |
| Chrysler 300C 2005 3.0 engine: The main issues with this diesel engine stem from the fuel system and its sensitive piezo injectors. These injectors are known for being highly demanding in terms of fuel quality, which can lead to performance ... More about Chrysler 300C 2005 3.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.02 m | 4.85 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.49 m | |
| Chrysler 300C is 17 cm longer than the Volvo S80, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Chrysler 300C is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 504 litres | 480 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
504 litres | no data | |
|
Chrysler 300C has more luggage capacity. Chrysler 300C has 24 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S80. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler 300C is 0.3 metres more than that of the Volvo S80. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`360 | 2`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 3800 | 5600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 9.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler 300C has
|
Volvo S80 has
| |