Mitsubishi Carisma 2001 vs Volvo S40 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 102 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 215 NM | 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Carisma engine produces 13 HP less power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 50 NM less than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Carisma reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 5.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Carisma could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1090 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1330 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| 1000 km with real consumption | 1110 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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: | 8 years | 8 years | |
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: | 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`775 | 1`770 | |
| 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 (€): | 800 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 7.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Carisma has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |