Citroen C-Crosser 2007 vs Volvo XC60 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 156 HP | 175 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 10.2 seconds | |
| Citroen C-Crosser engine produces 19 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Volvo XC60. Despite less power, Citroen C-Crosser reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC60 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen C-Crosser consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen C-Crosser could require 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen C-Crosser consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 1010 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo XC60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Volvo XC60 2008: The car is fitted with Haldex Generation IV proactive automatic all-wheel drive. Haldex processes data from the ABS control unit and the engine control unit and can increase the pressure on the multi-disc clutch for faster engagement when required. It has a 100% front to 0% rear torque split when not engaged with a maximum 50% to 50% torque split between axes. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 174 mm (6.9 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.65 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.71 m | |
| Citroen C-Crosser is 2 cm longer than the Volvo XC60, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Citroen C-Crosser is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 184 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 184 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 441 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1686 litres | 1455 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Volvo XC60 has more luggage space (by 54 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Citroen C-Crosser (by 231 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen C-Crosser is 0.1 metres more than that of the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`410 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 6000 | 8600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen C-Crosser has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |