BMW X5 2001 vs Volvo XC90 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.9 Diesel | 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: | 184 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 410 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
BMW X5 is more dynamic to drive. BMW X5 engine produces 21 HP more power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 70 NM more than Volvo XC90. Thanks to more power BMW X5 reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 8.3 | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. BMW X5 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW X5 could require 210 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 93 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1130 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| BMW X5 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 | 560'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW 7 sērija | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70, Volvo C30 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Volvo XC90 2003 2.4 engine: These diesel engines are frequently affected by intake manifold swirl flap seizures. This issue often leads to airflow disruptions and rough engine operation.
The actuator for the turbocharger, which relies ... More about Volvo XC90 2003 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.72 m | 1.74 m | |
|
BMW X5 is smaller. BMW X5 is 13 cm shorter than the Volvo XC90, 3 cm narrower, while the height of BMW X5 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 465 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1550 litres | 2404 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, BMW X5 has 216 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC90. 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 854 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW X5 is 0.7 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 (kg): | 2`665 | 2`720 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Volvo XC90 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW X5 has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Volvo XC90, so Volvo XC90 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 4200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 9.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X5 has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |