Volvo S40 1997 vs Mitsubishi Carisma 2001
| 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: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 NM | 215 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Carisma is a more dynamic driving. Volvo S40 engine produces 12 HP less power than Mitsubishi Carisma, whereas torque is 39 NM less than Mitsubishi Carisma. Due to the lower power, Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S40 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo S40 could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S40 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | 1090 km in combined cycle | |
| 1150 km on highway | 1330 km on highway | ||
| 920 km with real consumption | 1000 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 18 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V40, Mitsubishi Carisma | Installed on at least 11 other car models, including Volvo V40, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Volvo S40 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
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 | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
853 litres | 1050 litres | |
| Volvo S40 has 41 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Carisma. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Carisma (by 197 litres). | |||
| 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`795 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 200 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Carisma, so Mitsubishi Carisma quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.1/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S40 has
|
Mitsubishi Carisma has
| |