Volkswagen Sharan 2000 vs Volkswagen Touran 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 155 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 13.2 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Sharan is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Sharan engine produces 34 HP more power than Volkswagen Touran, whereas torque is 55 NM more than Volkswagen Touran. Thanks to more power Volkswagen Sharan reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.2 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.6 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Touran is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Sharan consumes 2.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Touran, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Sharan could require 345 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Sharan consumes 2.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Touran. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Touran gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 350'000 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: | 9 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A4, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3 | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, 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 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. 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 | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.63 m | 4.39 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.73 m | 1.65 m | |
|
Volkswagen Sharan is larger. Volkswagen Sharan is 24 cm longer than the Volkswagen Touran, 2 cm wider, while the height of Volkswagen Sharan is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1989 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Sharan is 0.3 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Touran. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`900 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| 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 (€): | 2200 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.1/10 | 8.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Sharan has
|
Volkswagen Touran has
| |