Nissan Qashqai 2010 vs Volvo XC60 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 156 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Qashqai engine produces 88 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 144 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Nissan Qashqai reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 8.0 | |
|
The Nissan Qashqai is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Nissan Qashqai consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that by driving the Nissan Qashqai over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| Nissan Qashqai gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 201 mm (7.9 inches) | 230 mm (9.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC60 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Volvo XC60 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from eleven 4x4 versions of Volvo XC60 2009 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 360'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 1 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Nissan Almera, Nissan Juke, Nissan Note, Nissan Micra | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo V60 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Qashqai might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Nissan Qashqai 2010 1.6 engine: A simple and reliable engine, not particularly demanding on fuel quality. Tends to consume more oil, may have problems starting in cold weather. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.33 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.61 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Nissan Qashqai is smaller. Nissan Qashqai is 30 cm shorter than the Volvo XC60, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Qashqai is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1513 litres | 1455 litres | |
| Nissan Qashqai has 85 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC60. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Qashqai (by 58 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | no data | |
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`830 | 2`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Qashqai has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7000 | 9000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 7.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Qashqai has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |