Ford Mondeo 2003 vs Volvo S60 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | 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: | 170 HP | 210 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 7.4 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Mondeo engine produces 40 HP less power than Volvo S60, whereas torque is 100 NM less than Volvo S60. Due to the lower power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.7 | 9.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.8 l/100km | 10.6 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S60 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Mondeo could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 550 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 740 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 540 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 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 | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo XC90, Volvo XC70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo S60 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Ford Mondeo engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| Ford Mondeo 2003 2.5 engine: The LCBD engine features a multi-point fuel injection system, where each cylinder is equipped with its own injector for precise fuel delivery. This system is highly durable and reliable, with a low likelihood of ... More about Ford Mondeo 2003 2.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.73 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Ford Mondeo is larger. Ford Mondeo is 15 cm longer than the Volvo S60, 1 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 424 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1034 litres | |
|
Ford Mondeo has more luggage capacity. Ford Mondeo has 76 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S60. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.9 metres less than that of the Volvo S60, which means Ford Mondeo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`940 | 2`030 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Ford Mondeo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S60 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Ford Mondeo, so Ford Mondeo quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.5/10 | 8.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Volvo S60 has
| |