Land Rover Range Rover 2006 vs Volvo XC90 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.6 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | 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: | 272 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 640 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 12 seconds | |
| Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 109 HP more power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 300 NM more than Volvo XC90. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | no data | 9.1 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 100 litres | 70 litres | |
| 800 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 560'000 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: | 4 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Land Rover Range Rover Sport | 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. | |||
| Volvo XC90 2002 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 2002 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.95 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.96 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is larger. Land Rover Range Rover is 15 cm longer than the Volvo XC90, 6 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 535 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2404 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover has more luggage capacity. Land Rover Range Rover has 286 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 1.1 metres less than that of the Volvo XC90, which means Land Rover Range Rover can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 2`735 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 7400 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |