Mitsubishi Carisma 2003 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 | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 137 NM | 143 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 13 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma engine produces 5 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 0.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 8.5 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 1.3 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 195 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Carisma might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo S40 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. | |||
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: | no data | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 853 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`660 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 200 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Carisma, so Mitsubishi Carisma quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 7.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Carisma has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |