Volkswagen Polo 1996 vs Volvo S40 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.7 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 116 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 55 HP less power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 49 NM less than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 8.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.9 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 1.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Polo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 285 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 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 | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Vento | 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. Volkswagen Polo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.14 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is smaller. Volkswagen Polo is 34 cm shorter than the Volvo S40, 8 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
760 litres | 853 litres | |
| Volkswagen Polo has 16 litres less trunk space than the Volvo S40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo S40 (by 93 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.1 metres less than that of the Volvo S40. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`455 | 1`720 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | below average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 7.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |