Volkswagen Sharan 1997 vs Seat Alhambra 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 202 NM | 202 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 19.3 seconds | 19.3 seconds | |
| Volkswagen Sharan and Seat Alhambra have the same engine power, the torque is the same for both cars. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.9 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Sharan is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Volkswagen Sharan consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Seat Alhambra, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Sharan could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Volkswagen Sharan consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Seat Alhambra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1130 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1380 km on highway | 1320 km on highway | ||
| 1080 km with real consumption | 920 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Sharan gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 600'000 km | 630'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Audi A4, Volkswagen Polo, Seat Toledo, Seat Cordoba | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Audi A6, Volkswagen Golf, Audi 80, Volkswagen Vento | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Seat Alhambra might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Seat Alhambra 1996 1.9 engine: This engine stands out for its durability and generally remains trouble-free until it has been used extensively over many years. Despite its robust construction, the wear and tear from prolonged use, ... More about Seat Alhambra 1996 1.9 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.62 m | 4.62 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.73 m | 1.73 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volkswagen Sharan and Seat Alhambra are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.7 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | low | |
| Volkswagen Sharan has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Seat Alhambra, so Volkswagen Sharan quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Sharan has
|
Seat Alhambra has
| |