Skoda Fabia 2004 vs Volvo S40 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 126 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17.3 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. Skoda Fabia engine produces 25 HP less power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 24 NM less than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Skoda Fabia reaches 100 km/h speed 5.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Fabia consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Skoda Fabia could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Fabia consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 570 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 750 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 540 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 370'000 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: | 4 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Octavia, Audi A2 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V50, Volvo C30 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Skoda Fabia might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Skoda Fabia 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: | 4.22 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.65 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Skoda Fabia is smaller. Skoda Fabia is 25 cm shorter than the Volvo S40, 12 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 438 litres | 404 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
789 litres | 883 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Skoda Fabia has 34 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S40. The Volvo S40 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo S40 (by 94 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Fabia is 0.5 metres less than that of the Volvo S40, which means Skoda Fabia can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`640 | 1`800 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Volvo S40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Fabia has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volvo S40, so Volvo S40 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 2400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.4/10 | 8.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Fabia has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |