Mitsubishi Carisma 2003 vs Volvo S40 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 82 HP | 109 HP | |
| Torque: | 120 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.1 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Carisma engine produces 27 HP less power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 25 NM less than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Carisma reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 7.7 | |
|
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: | 930 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 1150 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 440'000 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: | 27 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Colt, Mitsubishi Space Star | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.44 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.41 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mitsubishi Carisma is 5 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 |
no data | 853 litres | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma has 11 litres less trunk space than the Volvo S40. | |||
| 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`675 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Volvo S40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Carisma has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Volvo S40, so Volvo S40 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 8.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Carisma has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |