Volvo S40 2000 vs Mercedes C class 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 2.1 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 102 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 215 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 12.1 seconds | |
| Volvo S40 engine produces 13 HP less power than Mercedes C class, whereas torque is 35 NM less than Mercedes C class. Despite less power, Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.3 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S40 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class, which means that by driving the Volvo S40 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S40 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1420 km on highway | 1340 km on highway | ||
| 1130 km with real consumption | 1030 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 (Mercedes C class) 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.43 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volvo S40 is 5 cm shorter than the Mercedes C class, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo S40 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 471 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
853 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo S40 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mercedes C class. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mercedes C class has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mercedes C class, so Mercedes C class quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.0/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S40 has
|
Mercedes C klase has
| |