Land Rover Discovery 2002 vs Volvo XC90 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Double-row 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: | 137 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17.1 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC90 is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Discovery engine produces 26 HP less power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Volvo XC90. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Discovery reaches 100 km/h speed 5.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.3 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.7 l/100km | 9.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Discovery consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Discovery could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Discovery consumes 3.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 93 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 900 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - Full time 4WD | 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: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Land Rover Defender | 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 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo XC90 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. | |||
| Volvo XC90 2005 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 2005 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.90 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Land Rover Discovery is smaller, but higher. Land Rover Discovery is 10 cm shorter than the Volvo XC90, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Land Rover Discovery is 16 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 1290 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1970 litres | 2404 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Land Rover Discovery has 1041 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 434 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Discovery is 0.8 metres less than that of the Volvo XC90, which means Land Rover Discovery can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`750 | 2`735 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Discovery has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |