Last Update: May. 20, 2019, 5:16 a.m.
Home >>> >>> Alfa Romeo 145 and Chrysler Voyager

What is Better Alfa Romeo 145 or Chrysler Voyager?

Exterior

Alfa Romeo 145 Chrysler Voyager

7 reasons to buy Alfa Romeo 145

Performance
Faster acceleration from 0 to 60 mph 8.4 sec. vs 12 sec. 3.6 sec.
More top speed 130 mph vs 112 mph 18 mph
Fuel consumption
Less fuel consumption (City) 22.61 mpg vs 25 mpg 11% or 2.39 mpg
Emissions
Less CO2 emissions 131 g/mile vs 140 g/mile 7% or 9 g/mile
Less noise level 74 dB vs 75 dB 1% or 1 dB
Warranty
More warranty against corrosion 8 years vs 6 years 25% or 2 years
Other specs
Less weight 1275 kg vs 2085 kg 64% or 810 kg Weight of the vehicle affects: fuel consumption, acceleration dynamic, braking distance, etc.

14 reasons to buy Chrysler Voyager

Engine and transmission
Better compression 17.5 vs 10 43% or 7.5 . The greater degree of compression = the less fuel need to produce the same power.
Piston diameter larger 94 mm vs 83 mm 12% or 11 mm larger. The larger diameter of cylinder = the greater filling ratio. Cons: increase emissions of toxic substances.
Piston stroke longer 100 mm vs 91 mm 9% or 9 mm. The longer stroke = lower fuel consumption and fewer emissions.
More torque 359 nM vs 186 nM 48% or 173 nM. More torque = faster acceleration.
Fuel consumption
Less fuel consumption (Combined cycle) 29.39 mpg vs 32.11 mpg 9% or 2.72 mpg
Less fuel consumption (Highway) 32.78 mpg vs 42.22 mpg 29% or 9.44 mpg
Emissions
Higher european emission standard EURO 4 vs EURO 2 2 generations
Less CO emissions 0 g/mile vs 1 g/mile 0% or 1 g/mile
Weight and capacity
More minimum boot capacity 395 liters vs 320 liters 19% or 75 liters
More maximum trunk space 4080 liters vs 1130 liters 72% or 2950 liters
More capacity of fuel tank 75 liters vs 61 liters 19% or 14 liters
More maximum towing weight with brakes 1600 kg vs 1200 kg 25% or 400 kg
Other specs
Less turning radius 11.5 meters vs 110 meters 857% or 98.5 meters
More seats 7 vs 5 2

Neutral reasons Alfa Romeo 145 vs. Chrysler Voyager

Engine and transmission
Engine speed (RPM) 6200 RPM vs 3800 RPM 39% or 2400 more rpms.
Engine capacity 1970 cm3 vs 2776 cm3 29% or 806 cm3 less
Engine position Front transverse vs Front transverse
Cylinders location In line vs In line
Camshaft DOHC vs DOHC
Fuel supply Fuel injection vs COMMON RAIL
Turbocharging Yes vs Yes
Speeds 5 vs 4 1 more
Dimensions
Length 4093 mm vs 4808 mm 15% or 715 mm shorter
Width 1712 mm vs 1997 mm 14% or 285 mm narrower
Height 1427 mm vs 1749 mm 18% or 322 mm lower
Wheels and tires
Wheelbase 2540 mm vs 2878 mm 12% or 338 mm less
Front tires size 195/55 VR15 vs 215/65 R16
Rear tires size 195/55 VR15 vs 215/65 R16
Spare wheel 195/55 VR15 vs Compact
Type of wheels 15" alloy wheels vs 16" alloy wheels
*Specs may vary depending on configurations and year of production(taken parameters of last released versions)