Volkswagen Touran 2006 vs Volkswagen Sharan 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 102 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 148 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.9 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Sharan is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Touran engine produces 48 HP less power than Volkswagen Sharan, whereas torque is 62 NM less than Volkswagen Sharan. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Touran reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Touran is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Touran consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Touran over 15,000 km in a year you can save 225 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Touran consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Sharan. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 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 Volkswagen Touran engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A3 | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A4, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Sharan might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Volkswagen Touran 2006 1.6 engine: This engine is simple and reliable, rarely causing significant issues for owners.
Fluctuating idle speed is often linked to a clogged fuel pump strainer or air leaks in the intake system. If vibrations or ... More about Volkswagen Touran 2006 1.6 engine Volkswagen Sharan 2000 1.8 engine: The weakest link in this engine is the turbine, whose failure is contributed to by a faulty catalytic converter. The oil pump and chain tensioner also tend to have problems. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.41 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.64 m | 1.73 m | |
|
Volkswagen Touran is smaller. Volkswagen Touran is 22 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Sharan, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Touran is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 695 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1989 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Touran is 0.3 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Sharan. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`090 | 1`900 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Volkswagen Touran has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Volkswagen Sharan, so Volkswagen Touran quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 2200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 6.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Touran has
|
Volkswagen Sharan has
| |