Chrysler PT Cruiser 2002 vs Volvo C30 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.1 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 121 HP | 109 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
| Chrysler PT Cruiser engine produces 12 HP more power than Volvo C30, whereas torque is 60 NM more than Volvo C30. Despite the higher power, Chrysler PT Cruiser reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 4.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 5.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo C30 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler PT Cruiser consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C30, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler PT Cruiser could require 300 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler PT Cruiser consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo C30. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 57 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 1120 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1300 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 960 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo C30 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S40, Volvo V50 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo C30 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.39 m | 4.25 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.45 m | |
| Chrysler PT Cruiser is 14 cm longer than the Volvo C30, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Chrysler PT Cruiser is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 251 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler PT Cruiser is 0.5 metres more than that of the Volvo C30, which means Chrysler PT Cruiser can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`000 | 1`780 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Volvo C30 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chrysler PT Cruiser has serious deffects in 135 percent more cases than Volvo C30, so Volvo C30 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 2800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.3/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler PT Cruiser has
|
Volvo C30 has
| |