Volvo V40 2012 vs Nissan Pulsar 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.7 seconds | 12.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo V40 engine produces 65 HP more power than Nissan Pulsar, whereas torque is 75 NM more than Nissan Pulsar. Thanks to more power Volvo V40 reaches 100 km/h speed 5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 5.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Pulsar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo V40 consumes 0.4 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 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo V40 consumes 0.6 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 | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 1310 km on highway | 1040 km on highway | ||
| 790 km with real consumption | 630 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. | |||
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 | |
|
Nissan Pulsar has more luggage space. Volvo V40 has 50 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Pulsar. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V40 is 1 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 (kg): | 1`910 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Volvo V40 scores higher in safety tests, but Nissan Pulsar is better rated in child safety tests. The Volvo V40 scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Pulsar has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7400 | 6400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V40 has
|
Nissan Pulsar has
| |