Volvo S40 2002 vs Volvo S40 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 109 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 143 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 13 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 2002 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo S40 2002 engine produces 4 HP more power than Volvo S40 1995, whereas torque is 2 NM more than Volvo S40 1995. Thanks to more power Volvo S40 2002 reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 8.8 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S40 2002 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S40 2002 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40 1995, which means that by driving the Volvo S40 2002 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S40 2002 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40 1995. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S40 2002 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo V40 | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo S40 2002 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo S40 1995 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.41 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volvo S40 2002 and Volvo S40 1995 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 471 litres | 415 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
853 litres | 853 litres | |
|
Volvo S40 2002 has more luggage capacity. Volvo S40 2002 has 56 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S40 1995. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Volvo S40 2002 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 1995 has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Volvo S40 2002, so Volvo S40 2002 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 7.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S40 has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |