Volvo V40 1996 vs Mitsubishi Carisma 1997
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons 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: | 140 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 183 NM | 174 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo V40 engine produces 15 HP more power than Mitsubishi Carisma, whereas torque is 9 NM more than Mitsubishi Carisma. Thanks to more power Volvo V40 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo V40 consumes 2.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo V40 could require 345 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo V40 consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 890 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 1110 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volvo V40 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 23 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo S40 | 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. | |||
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 V40 and Mitsubishi Carisma are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 460 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1421 litres | 430 litres | |
| Volvo V40 has 47 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Carisma. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V40 (by 991 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V40 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`740 | 1`685 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo V40 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Carisma, so Mitsubishi Carisma quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.4/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V40 has
|
Mitsubishi Carisma has
| |