Chevrolet Equinox 2009 vs Volvo XC90 2010
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 2.4 - 3.6 (petrol) | 2.4 - 3.2 (petrol, diesel) | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 182 - 301 HP | 163 - 243 HP | |
| Torque: | 233 - 369 NM | 320 - 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.8 - 10.8 seconds | 9.5 - 11.8 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 - 12.4 | 8.1 - 11.5 | |
|
Chevrolet Equinox petrol engines consumes on average 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than Volvo XC90. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.77 m | 4.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.94 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Chevrolet Equinox is smaller. Chevrolet Equinox is 4 cm shorter than the Volvo XC90, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Chevrolet Equinox is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 889 litres | 600 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1837 litres | |
|
Chevrolet Equinox has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Chevrolet Equinox has 289 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC90. The Volvo XC90 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 12.5 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`325 | ~ 2`718 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 12 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Equinox has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |