Chrysler Grand Voyager 2001 vs Seat Alhambra 2000
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.8 Diesel | 2.8 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Chrysler Grand Voyager) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Seat Alhambra) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 204 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Seat Alhambra is a more dynamic driving. Chrysler Grand Voyager engine produces 54 HP less power than Seat Alhambra, but torque is 95 NM more than Seat Alhambra. Due to the lower power, Chrysler Grand Voyager reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 11.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.0 l/100km | 12.3 l/100km | |
|
The Chrysler Grand Voyager is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler Grand Voyager consumes 3.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Seat Alhambra, which means that by driving the Chrysler Grand Voyager over 15,000 km in a year you can save 510 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler Grand Voyager consumes 2.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Seat Alhambra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
| 1110 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
| Chrysler Grand Voyager gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.09 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 2.00 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.75 m | 1.76 m | |
|
Chrysler Grand Voyager is larger, but slightly lower. Chrysler Grand Voyager is 46 cm longer than the Seat Alhambra, 19 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler Grand Voyager is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 920 litres | 256 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 256 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 920 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
4130 litres | 2610 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chrysler Grand Voyager (by 1520 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.9 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 2`630 kg | 2`470 kg | |
| Net weight: | 2`030 kg | 1`652 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 600 kg | 818 kg | |
| Chrysler Grand Voyager load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 36 procentiem less than Seat Alhambra. Therefore, Seat Alhambra is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Grand Voyager has
|
Seat Alhambra has
| |