Nissan X-Trail 2010 vs Volvo XC60 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan X-Trail engine produces 13 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 8.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan X-Trail consumes 1.9 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 285 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan X-Trail consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan X-Trail gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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 2008: The car is fitted with Haldex Generation IV proactive automatic all-wheel drive. Haldex processes data from the ABS control unit and the engine control unit and can increase the pressure on the multi-disc clutch for faster engagement when required. It has a 100% front to 0% rear torque split when not engaged with a maximum 50% to 50% torque split between axes. | |||
| Nissan X-Trail 2010 2.0 engine: The engine has a good power to fuel consumption ratio and, with careful maintenance, a long service life. The most common problems with these engines are with the fuel injection system and lubrication. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.71 m | |
| Nissan X-Trail and Volvo XC60 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 479 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1455 litres | |
| Nissan X-Trail has 16 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan X-Trail is 1.1 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`170 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Average price (€): | 8000 | 8000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.0/10 | 7.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |