Mitsubishi Carisma 1995 vs Volvo S40 2002
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.3 - 1.9 | 1.6 - 1.9 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 82 - 140 HP | 102 - 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 120 - 265 NM | 145 - 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 - 15 seconds | 7.3 - 12 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 - 8.4 | 5.4 - 10.0 | |
|
Mitsubishi Carisma petrol engines consumes on average 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than Volvo S40. On average, Mitsubishi Carisma equipped with diesel engines consume 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.46 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.41 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi Carisma is 2 cm shorter than the Volvo S40, 1 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 460 litres | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
460 litres | 853 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma has 11 litres less trunk space than the Volvo S40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo S40 (by 393 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Carisma is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volvo S40, which means Mitsubishi Carisma can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`673 | ~ 1`768 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 8.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Carisma has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |