Volvo S40 1998 vs Mitsubishi Carisma 1997
| 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 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 160 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 174 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.5 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo S40 engine produces 35 HP more power than Mitsubishi Carisma, whereas torque is 56 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): | 8.9 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.5 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S40 consumes 2.2 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 330 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S40 consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 890 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 1110 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 2 years | 23 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo V40 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V40, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Galant | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Carisma might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mitsubishi Carisma 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 | 1.71 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 | 660 litres | |
|
Volvo S40 has more luggage capacity. 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 Volvo S40 (by 193 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`790 | 1`685 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 145 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
| |