Volvo XC90 2006 vs Audi Q7 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 4.4 Petrol | 4.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 315 HP | 350 HP | |
| Torque: | 440 NM | 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.3 seconds | 7.4 seconds | |
| Volvo XC90 engine produces 35 HP less power than Audi Q7, the torque is the same for both cars. Despite less power, Volvo XC90 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 13.5 | 13.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 13.9 l/100km | 16.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC90 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q7, which means that by driving the Volvo XC90 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC90 consumes 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q7. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 100 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 590 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 810 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 570 km with real consumption | 620 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi Q7 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: | 700'000 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 Volvo XC90 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo S80 | Used also on Volkswagen Touareg | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Audi Q7 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: | 4.81 m | 5.09 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.98 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Volvo XC90 is smaller, but slightly higher. Volvo XC90 is 28 cm shorter than the Audi Q7, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo XC90 is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 249 litres | 775 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 249 litres | 775 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 613 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1837 litres | 2035 litres | |
| In 7-seat version Audi Q7 has more luggage space (by 526 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Audi Q7 (by 198 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.5 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC90 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Audi Q7, which means Volvo XC90 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`770 | 2`935 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Audi Q7 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo XC90 has serious deffects in 100 percent more cases than Audi Q7, so Audi Q7 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9000 | 7800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC90 has
|
Audi Q7 has
| |