Volvo V40 2016 vs Nissan Pulsar 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.9 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo V40 engine produces 75 HP more power than Nissan Pulsar, whereas torque is 110 NM more than Nissan Pulsar. Thanks to more power Volvo V40 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 5.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Pulsar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo V40 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Pulsar, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo V40 could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo V40 consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Pulsar. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1120 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 1340 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 144 mm (5.7 inches) | 156 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Nissan Pulsar can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Nissan Pulsar version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.39 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.52 m | |
| Volvo V40 is 2 cm shorter than the Nissan Pulsar, 3 cm wider, while the height of Volvo V40 is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 335 litres | 385 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1500 litres | 1395 litres | |
| Volvo V40 has 50 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Pulsar. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V40 (by 105 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V40 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Nissan Pulsar, which means Volvo V40 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`975 kg | 1`750 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Pulsar has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 200 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V40 has
|
Nissan Pulsar has
| |