Toyota Land Cruiser 1998 vs Volvo XC90 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 4.2 Diesel | 2.9 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 204 HP | 272 HP | |
| Torque: | 430 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.1 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC90 is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Land Cruiser engine produces 68 HP less power than Volvo XC90, but torque is 50 NM more than Volvo XC90. Due to the lower power, Toyota Land Cruiser reaches 100 km/h speed 3.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 12.6 | 13.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 14.1 l/100km | 15.9 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Land Cruiser is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90, which means that by driving the Toyota Land Cruiser over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 96 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 530 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 720 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 440 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Land Cruiser gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Toyota Land Cruiser engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 5 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Land Cruiser might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo XC90 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.89 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.94 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.88 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Toyota Land Cruiser is larger. Toyota Land Cruiser is 9 cm longer than the Volvo XC90, 4 cm wider, while the height of Toyota Land Cruiser is 14 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 249 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2404 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Land Cruiser is 0.9 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): | 3`500 | 2`760 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 7000 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Land Cruiser has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |