Audi Q3 2011 vs Volvo XC60 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
| Audi Q3 engine produces 33 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Volvo XC60. Despite less power, Audi Q3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 8.0 | |
|
The Audi Q3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Audi Q3 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that by driving the Audi Q3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Ground clearance: | 184 mm (7.2 inches) | 230 mm (9.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC60 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Volvo XC60 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from eleven 4x4 versions of Volvo XC60 2009 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 360'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 1 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volkswagen Tiguan | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo V60 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Audi Q3 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: | 4.38 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.83 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.61 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Audi Q3 is smaller. Audi Q3 is 25 cm shorter than the Volvo XC60, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Audi Q3 is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 460 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1455 litres | |
|
Volvo XC60 has more luggage space. Audi Q3 has 35 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | no data | |
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`110 | 2`500 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Audi Q3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo XC60 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Audi Q3, so Audi Q3 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 13 200 | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi Q3 has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |