Nissan X-Trail 2014 vs Volvo XC60 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 181 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.4 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan X-Trail engine produces 51 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 100 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.2 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan X-Trail consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that by driving the Nissan X-Trail over 15,000 km in a year you can save 195 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan X-Trail consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1170 km in combined cycle | 1090 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1320 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 950 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Volvo XC60 2013: This Volvo has Haldex Generation V proactive automatic four-wheel drive. It analyzes input from the ABS and engine control units and can increase pressure on the multi-disc clutch for faster application when needed. During normal driving, the torque split is 100% to the front and no torque to the rear. If wheel spin is detected, torque can be split evenly between the axles (50% to 50%). | |||
| Ground clearance: | 210 mm (8.3 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. | |||
| Nissan X-Trail 2014 1.6 engine: This 1.6-liter diesel engine is a joint development by Renault-Nissan engineers. It features a cast-iron block, a 16-valve cylinder head with hydraulic lifters, a chain-driven timing system, and a Bosch Common ... More about Nissan X-Trail 2014 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Nissan X-Trail is smaller. Nissan X-Trail and Volvo XC60 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1877 litres | 1455 litres | |
|
Nissan X-Trail has more luggage capacity. Nissan X-Trail has 55 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC60. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan X-Trail (by 422 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan X-Trail is 0.5 metres less than that of the Volvo XC60, which means Nissan X-Trail can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`310 | 2`270 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan X-Trail has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 10 400 | 13 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |