Ford Scorpio 1996 vs Volvo 850 1992
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 147 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 202 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Volvo 850 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Scorpio engine produces 23 HP less power than Volvo 850, whereas torque is 18 NM less than Volvo 850. Due to the lower power, Ford Scorpio reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.5 | 9.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.2 l/100km | 9.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo 850 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Scorpio consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Scorpio could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Scorpio consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 73 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 620 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo 850 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo 850) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Ford Scorpio) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.82 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Ford Scorpio is larger, but slightly lower. Ford Scorpio is 16 cm longer than the Volvo 850, 12 cm wider, while the height of Ford Scorpio is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Scorpio is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volvo 850. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`850 | 1`600 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Volvo 850 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Ford Scorpio, so Volvo 850 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Volvo 850 has
| |