Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2005 vs Volvo XC90 2006
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport is available only with automatic gearbox, whereas Volvo XC90 has both automatic and manual transmission options. | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport 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: | 2.7 - 4.4 | 2.4 - 4.4 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 - 390 HP | 163 - 315 HP | |
| Torque: | 425 - 640 NM | 320 - 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.6 - 12.7 seconds | 7.3 - 12 seconds | |
| In general, Land Rover Range Rover Sport 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): | 10.2 - 15.9 | 8.2 - 13.5 | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport petrol engines consumes on average 3.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than Volvo XC90. On average, Land Rover Range Rover Sport equipped with diesel engines consume 2.3 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: | 227 mm (8.9 inches) | 218 mm (8.6 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.93 m | 1.91 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.77 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 2 cm shorter than the Volvo XC90, 2 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 960 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
2013 litres | 1837 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has more luggage capacity. 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 Land Rover Range Rover Sport (by 176 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 12.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 0.9 metres less than that of the Volvo XC90, which means Land Rover Range Rover Sport can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 3`110 kg | ~ 2`735 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 2`546 kg | ~ 2`080 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 564 kg | ~ 655 kg | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 16 procentiem less than Volvo XC90. Therefore, Volvo XC90 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 4800 | 6800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |