Mitsubishi Carisma 1997 vs Volvo S40 1999
| 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: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 174 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 10 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma engine produces 3 HP more power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 4 NM more than Volvo S40. Despite the higher power, Mitsubishi Carisma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 8.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 1.5 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 225 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 890 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 1110 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 810 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 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 S40 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 23 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V40, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Galant | Used also on Volvo V40 | |
| 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: | yes | no | |
| The Mitsubishi Carisma 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: | 430 litres | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
660 litres | 853 litres | |
|
Volvo S40 has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Carisma has 41 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: | 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`685 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 145 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
| |