Volvo S40 2001 vs Volkswagen Passat 1983
| 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: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 167 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo S40 engine produces 30 HP more power than Volkswagen Passat, whereas torque is 22 NM more than Volkswagen Passat. Thanks to more power Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.0 | 7.9 | |
|
The Volkswagen Passat is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volvo S40 consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Passat, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo S40 could require 315 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| Volkswagen Passat gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo S40) 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 (Volkswagen Passat) 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: | 420'000 km | 480'000 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 Volkswagen Passat engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo V40 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Audi 80, Audi Coupe | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Passat might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen Passat 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 | 4.84 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.42 m | |
| Volvo S40 is 36 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Passat, width is practically the same , while the height of Volvo S40 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 471 litres | 500 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
853 litres | no data | |
|
Volkswagen Passat has more luggage space. Volvo S40 has 29 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Passat. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo S40 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Passat. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | 1`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S40 has
|
Volkswagen Passat has
| |