Ford Mondeo 1996 vs Volvo S60 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 177 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.2 seconds | 9.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Mondeo engine produces 73 HP less power than Volvo S60, whereas torque is 163 NM less than Volvo S60. Due to the lower power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60, which means that by driving the Ford Mondeo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford Mondeo consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1290 km on highway | 1340 km on highway | ||
| 910 km with real consumption | 1070 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 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 S60 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Escort | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo XC90, Volvo XC70, 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 S60 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo S60 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. | |||
| Volvo S60 2001 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 S60 2001 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.56 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Ford Mondeo is smaller. Ford Mondeo is 2 cm shorter than the Volvo S60, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 470 litres | 424 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1290 litres | 1034 litres | |
|
Ford Mondeo has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Ford Mondeo has 46 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S60. The Volvo S60 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Mondeo (by 256 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.7 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`855 | 2`030 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Volvo S60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 175 percent more cases than Volvo S60, so Volvo S60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.3/10 | 8.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Volvo S60 has
| |