Volvo 960 1990 vs Volkswagen Vento 1992
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.9 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 204 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 267 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 12.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo 960 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo 960 engine produces 114 HP more power than Volkswagen Vento, whereas torque is 122 NM more than Volkswagen Vento. Thanks to more power Volvo 960 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.0 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.4 l/100km | 7.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Vento is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo 960 consumes 3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Vento, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo 960 could require 450 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo 960 consumes 4.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Vento. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volkswagen Vento) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Volvo 960) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 420'000 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 960 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo S90, Volvo V90 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Seat Toledo, Seat Ibiza, Seat Cordoba | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Vento might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.87 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Volvo 960 is larger, but slightly lower. Volvo 960 is 49 cm longer than the Volkswagen Vento, 5 cm wider, while the height of Volvo 960 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 491 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 9.9 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo 960 is 0.8 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Vento, which means Volvo 960 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`960 | 1`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo 960 has
|
Volkswagen Vento has
| |