Subaru B9 Tribeca 2006 vs Volvo XC90 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 2.4 Diesel | |
| 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 | 185 HP | |
| Torque: | 297 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Subaru B9 Tribeca is more dynamic to drive. Subaru B9 Tribeca engine produces 60 HP more power than Volvo XC90, but torque is 103 NM less than Volvo XC90. Thanks to more power Subaru B9 Tribeca reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 12.3 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Subaru B9 Tribeca consumes 3.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Subaru B9 Tribeca could require 570 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru B9 Tribeca consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 520 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 620 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo XC90 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 480'000 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 Volvo XC90 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 | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70, Volvo XC60 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo XC90 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 | 4.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.78 m | |
| Subaru B9 Tribeca is 5 cm longer than the Volvo XC90, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Subaru B9 Tribeca is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 450 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 249 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 450 litres | 613 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1837 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Volvo XC90 has more luggage space (by 163 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 12.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru B9 Tribeca is 1.1 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`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 9000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru B9 Tribeca has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |