Mitsubishi Carisma 1996 vs Volvo S40 1997
| Body: | Hatchback | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 137 NM | 143 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 13 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma engine produces 15 HP less power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 6 NM less than Volvo S40. Despite less power, Mitsubishi Carisma reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Carisma over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 780 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 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 and Volvo S40 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 440 litres | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
660 litres | 853 litres | |
|
Volvo S40 has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Carisma has 31 litres less trunk space than the Volvo S40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo S40 (by 193 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`630 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Carisma, so Mitsubishi Carisma quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 7.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Carisma has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |