BMW X5 2003 vs Volvo XC90 2006
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| BMW X5 is available only with four wheel (4x4) drive, while Volvo XC90 can be equipped with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Volvo XC90 also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 3.0 - 4.8 | 2.4 - 4.4 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 218 - 360 HP | 163 - 315 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 - 500 NM | 320 - 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.1 - 8.8 seconds | 7.3 - 12 seconds | |
| In general, BMW X5 are available with more powerful and dynamic engines than Volvo XC90. Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 - 14.0 | 8.2 - 13.5 | |
|
BMW X5 petrol engines consumes on average 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than Volvo XC90. On average, BMW X5 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 180 - 203 mm (7.1 - 8 inches) | 218 mm (8.6 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC90 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.91 m | |
| Height: | 1.72 m | 1.77 m | |
|
BMW X5 is smaller. BMW X5 is 14 cm shorter than the Volvo XC90, 3 cm narrower, while the height of BMW X5 is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 465 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1550 litres | 1837 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, The Volvo XC90 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo XC90 (by 287 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 12.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW X5 is 0.5 metres less than that of the Volvo XC90, which means BMW X5 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 2`666 kg | ~ 2`735 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 2`113 kg | ~ 2`080 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 553 kg | ~ 655 kg | |
| BMW X5 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 18 procentiem less than Volvo XC90. Therefore, Volvo XC90 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Average price (€): | 4800 | 7400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.6/10 | 8.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X5 has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |