Toyota Land Cruiser 2002 vs Volvo XC90 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 4.2 Diesel | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 204 HP | 210 HP | |
| Torque: | 430 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.1 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC90 is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Land Cruiser engine produces 6 HP less power than Volvo XC90, but torque is 110 NM more than Volvo XC90. Due to the lower power, Toyota Land Cruiser reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 12.6 | 12.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 13.8 l/100km | 11.9 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota Land Cruiser could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 96 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 730 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 580 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Land Cruiser 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: | 560'000 km | 420'000 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 Toyota Land Cruiser engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70 | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.89 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.94 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.89 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Toyota Land Cruiser is larger. Toyota Land Cruiser is 9 cm longer than the Volvo XC90, 4 cm wider, while the height of Toyota Land Cruiser is 15 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 249 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2404 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Land Cruiser is 0.9 metres less than that of the Volvo XC90, which means Toyota Land Cruiser can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 2`720 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 4400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.6/10 | 9.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Land Cruiser has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |