Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2009 vs Volvo XC90 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 245 HP | 185 HP | |
| Torque: | 600 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport is more dynamic to drive. Land Rover Range Rover Sport engine produces 60 HP more power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 200 NM more than Volvo XC90. Thanks to more power Land Rover Range Rover Sport reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.1 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 0.7 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 Range Rover Sport could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 480'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volvo XC90 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Range Rover, Land Rover Discovery | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70, Volvo XC60 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Volvo XC90 2006 2.4 engine: The early versions of these engines are known for their reliability and rare failures, which made them popular.
However, engine have several common weaknesses. Intake manifold swirl flaps often seize, and ... More about Volvo XC90 2006 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.78 m | 4.81 m | |
| Width: | 2.00 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.78 m | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 3 cm shorter than the Volvo XC90, 10 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 249 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 249 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 613 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1837 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 12.5 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`175 | 2`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 9600 | 8400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |