Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2005 vs Volvo XC90 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.7 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 HP | 185 HP | |
| Torque: | 440 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | 12 seconds | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport engine produces 5 HP more power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Volvo XC90. Despite the higher power, Land Rover Range Rover Sport reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.2 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.0 l/100km | 9.8 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 1.2 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 180 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 82 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 740 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 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: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on 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 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Volvo XC90 2005 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 2005 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.93 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.74 m | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 1 cm shorter than the Volvo XC90, 3 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 249 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2404 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 1.1 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 (kg): | no data | 2`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 5600 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |