Volvo S40 2005 vs Volkswagen Golf 2004
| Body: | Sedan | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 220 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.5 seconds | 9.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo S40 engine produces 70 HP more power than Volkswagen Golf, whereas torque is 120 NM more than Volkswagen Golf. Thanks to more power Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.0 | 8.1 | |
|
The Volkswagen Golf is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volvo S40 consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Golf, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo S40 could require 285 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| Volkswagen Golf gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 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 Volvo S40 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo V50, Volvo C30, Volvo C70 | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Audi A3, Seat Altea, Seat Leon | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Golf might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen Golf 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. | |||
| Volkswagen Golf 2004 2.0 engine: 2.0 FSI engine, part of the EA827 family, features a lightweight aluminum block with cast-iron liners and a unique timing system. A toothed belt drives the exhaust camshaft, while the intake camshaft is driven by a single-row chain, which also integrates with the variable valve timing mechanism. The timing regulator is ... More about Volkswagen Golf 2004 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.20 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Volvo S40 is larger, but slightly lower. Volvo S40 is 27 cm longer than the Volkswagen Golf, 1 cm wider, while the height of Volvo S40 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 404 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
883 litres | 1305 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo S40 is 0.1 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Golf. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`020 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Volkswagen Golf has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volkswagen Golf, so Volkswagen Golf quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2200 | 1800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.6/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S40 has
|
Volkswagen Golf has
| |