Volvo V40 2000 vs Alfa Romeo 156 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 102 HP | 175 HP | |
| Torque: | 215 NM | 385 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 8.6 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo 156 is a more dynamic driving. Volvo V40 engine produces 73 HP less power than Alfa Romeo 156, whereas torque is 170 NM less than Alfa Romeo 156. Due to the lower power, Volvo V40 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.2 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo V40 consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Alfa Romeo 156, which means that by driving the Volvo V40 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 195 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo V40 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Alfa Romeo 156. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 940 km in combined cycle | |
| 1420 km on highway | 1140 km on highway | ||
| 960 km with real consumption | 910 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.43 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.42 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volvo V40 is 5 cm longer than the Alfa Romeo 156, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo V40 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 360 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1420 litres | 1180 litres | |
|
Volvo V40 has more luggage capacity. Volvo V40 has 53 litres more trunk space than the Alfa Romeo 156. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V40 (by 240 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V40 is 1 metres less than that of the Alfa Romeo 156, which means Volvo V40 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`800 | 1`895 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Alfa Romeo 156 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V40 has
|
Alfa Romeo 156 has
| |