Citroen C6 2005 vs Volvo XC60 2009
| Body: | Hatchback | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 173 HP | 175 HP | |
| Torque: | 370 NM | 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
| Citroen C6 engine produces 2 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 50 NM less than Volvo XC60. Despite less power, Citroen C6 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen C6 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Citroen C6 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen C6 could require 90 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Citroen C6 consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 72 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1090 km in combined cycle | 1160 km in combined cycle | |
| 1330 km on highway | 1400 km on highway | ||
| 1020 km with real consumption | 920 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Volvo XC60 2008: The car is fitted with Haldex Generation IV proactive automatic all-wheel drive. Haldex processes data from the ABS control unit and the engine control unit and can increase the pressure on the multi-disc clutch for faster engagement when required. It has a 100% front to 0% rear torque split when not engaged with a maximum 50% to 50% torque split between axes. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.91 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.86 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.71 m | |
| Citroen C6 is 28 cm longer than the Volvo XC60, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Citroen C6 is 25 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 407 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1455 litres | |
|
Volvo XC60 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Citroen C6 has 88 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC60. This could mean that the Citroen C6 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.4 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen C6 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Volvo XC60, which means Citroen C6 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`280 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 4000 | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen C6 has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |