Land Rover Range Rover 2002 vs Volvo XC90 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.9 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: | 177 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 390 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.6 seconds | 12 seconds | |
| Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 14 HP more power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Volvo XC90. Despite the higher power, Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.3 | 9.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.2 l/100km | 9.3 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover consumes 2.2 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 could require 330 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover consumes 2.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 100 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 810 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 only for this car | 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: | 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 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: | |||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |