Subaru B9 Tribeca 2006 vs Volvo XC90 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 2.9 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 245 HP | 272 HP | |
| Torque: | 297 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC90 is a more dynamic driving. Subaru B9 Tribeca engine produces 27 HP less power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 83 NM less than Volvo XC90. Due to the lower power, Subaru B9 Tribeca reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 12.3 | 13.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 15.9 l/100km | |
|
The Subaru B9 Tribeca is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Subaru B9 Tribeca consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90, which means that by driving the Subaru B9 Tribeca over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru B9 Tribeca consumes 4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 520 km in combined cycle | 530 km in combined cycle | |
| 620 km on highway | 720 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 440 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 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 Subaru B9 Tribeca engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Subaru Outback, Subaru Legacy | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Subaru B9 Tribeca might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo XC90 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.86 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.74 m | |
| Subaru B9 Tribeca is 6 cm longer than the Volvo XC90, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Subaru B9 Tribeca is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 450 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2404 litres | |
|
Subaru B9 Tribeca has more luggage capacity. Subaru B9 Tribeca has 201 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru B9 Tribeca is 1.3 metres less than that of the Volvo XC90, which means Subaru B9 Tribeca can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 2`760 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru B9 Tribeca has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |