Ford Mondeo 2000 vs Volvo XC70 2002
Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
---|---|---|---|
Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
Camshaft drive: | Double-row timing chain | Timing belt | |
Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
Power: | 90 HP | 163 HP | |
Torque: | 245 NM | 340 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.7 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
Volvo XC70 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Mondeo engine produces 73 HP less power than Volvo XC70, whereas torque is 95 NM less than Volvo XC70. Due to the lower power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 8.5 | |
Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 2.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC70, which means that by driving the Ford Mondeo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 390 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC70. | |||
Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 70 litres | |
Full fuel tank distance: | 940 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
1210 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
820 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Volvo XC70 2000: Automatic four-wheel drive with torque transfer to rear axle via viscous clutch when front wheels slip. Electronic traction control on front wheels (TRACS), which operates at speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph) | |||
Engines | |||
Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 560'000 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 Volvo XC70 engine could be longer. | |||
Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC90, Volvo C30 | |
In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo XC70 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Volvo XC70 2002 2.4 engine: These diesel engines are frequently affected by intake manifold swirl flap seizures. This issue often leads to airflow disruptions and rough engine operation.
The actuator for the turbocharger, which relies ... More about Volvo XC70 2002 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.80 m | 4.73 m | |
Width: | 1.81 m | 1.86 m | |
Height: | 1.44 m | 1.56 m | |
Ford Mondeo is 7 cm longer than the Volvo XC70, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 12 cm lower. | |||
Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 485 litres | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1700 litres | 1641 litres | |
Ford Mondeo has more luggage capacity. Ford Mondeo has 55 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC70. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Mondeo (by 59 litres). | |||
Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11.6 meters | |
The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.5 metres less than that of the Volvo XC70, which means Ford Mondeo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
Gross weight (kg): | 2`140 | no data | |
Safety: | no data | ||
Quality: | average | below average | |
Ford Mondeo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo XC70 has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Ford Mondeo, so Ford Mondeo quality is probably significantly better | |||
Average price (€): | 1000 | 2000 | |
Rating in user reviews: | 7.5/10 | 7.9/10 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Volvo XC70 has
| |