Nissan X-Trail 2010 vs Volvo XC60 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 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: | 150 HP | 215 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 8.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan X-Trail engine produces 65 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 120 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 6.4 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 1090 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1320 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 850 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%). | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Opel Vivaro | Used also on Volvo XC70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan X-Trail might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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 | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Nissan X-Trail is smaller. 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 | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan X-Trail is 0.9 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`270 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 8000 | 13 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.0/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |