Volkswagen Touran 2003 vs Volkswagen Sharan 2000
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 155 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.2 seconds | 12.1 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Sharan is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Touran engine produces 34 HP less power than Volkswagen Sharan, whereas torque is 55 NM less than Volkswagen Sharan. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Touran reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 10.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.7 l/100km | 11.6 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Touran is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Touran consumes 2.3 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 345 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Touran consumes 2.9 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 | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Touran gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 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 Sharan engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, 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 2003 1.6 engine: Owners of vehicles with this engine often report difficulties starting in cold weather. Carbon buildup tends to cause sticking in the intake valves, throttle body, and EGR valve, leading to performance ... More about Volkswagen Touran 2003 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: | 4.39 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.73 m | |
|
Volkswagen Touran is smaller. Volkswagen Touran is 24 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Sharan, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Touran is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 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): | no data | 1`900 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Volkswagen Touran has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Sharan has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Volkswagen Touran, so Volkswagen Touran quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 2200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.1/10 | 6.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Touran has
|
Volkswagen Sharan has
| |