Toyota Land Cruiser 2002 vs Volvo XC90 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 185 HP | |
| Torque: | 343 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.8 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC90 is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Land Cruiser engine produces 22 HP less power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 57 NM less than Volvo XC90. Due to the lower power, Toyota Land Cruiser reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.4 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.5 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota Land Cruiser could require 285 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 87 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| 820 km with real consumption | 670 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: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Volvo XC90 2006 2.4 engine: The early versions of these engines are known for their reliability and rare failures, which made them popular.
However, engine have several common weaknesses. Intake manifold swirl flaps often seize, and ... More about Volvo XC90 2006 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.85 m | 4.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.90 m | 1.78 m | |
| Toyota Land Cruiser is 4 cm longer than the Volvo XC90, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota Land Cruiser is 12 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 249 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 249 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 613 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1837 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 12.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Land Cruiser is 1.1 metres less than that of the Volvo XC90, which means Toyota Land Cruiser can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`800 | 2`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 8400 | 7800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.4/10 | 8.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Land Cruiser has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |