Volvo S40 2002 vs Mitsubishi Carisma 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 265 NM | 215 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo S40 engine produces 13 HP more power than Mitsubishi Carisma, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Mitsubishi Carisma. Thanks to more power Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.5 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S40 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma, which means that by driving the Volvo S40 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S40 consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 1090 km in combined cycle | |
| 1390 km on highway | 1330 km on highway | ||
| 1090 km with real consumption | 1000 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 8 years | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.40 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volvo S40 and Mitsubishi Carisma are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 471 litres | 460 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
853 litres | no data | |
| Volvo S40 has 11 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo S40 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Carisma, which means Volvo S40 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`775 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Volvo S40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Carisma has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Volvo S40, so Volvo S40 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S40 has
|
Mitsubishi Carisma has
| |