Toyota Sienna 2010 vs Volvo XC90 2006
| Body: | Minivan / MPV | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 3.5 Petrol | 3.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 266 HP | 243 HP | |
| Torque: | 392 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9.5 seconds | |
| Toyota Sienna engine produces 23 HP more power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 72 NM more than Volvo XC90. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 13.1 | 11.5 | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Toyota Sienna consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota Sienna could require 240 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 570 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| Volvo XC90 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) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Toyota RAV4, Lexus RX, Toyota Camry, Lexus ES | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Sienna might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.09 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.99 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.75 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Toyota Sienna is larger, but slightly lower. Toyota Sienna is 29 cm longer than the Volvo XC90, 9 cm wider, while the height of Toyota Sienna is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 993 litres | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
3810 litres | 2404 litres | |
|
Toyota Sienna has more luggage capacity. Toyota Sienna has 463 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC90. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Toyota Sienna (by 1406 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Sienna is 1.3 metres less than that of the Volvo XC90, which means Toyota Sienna can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`760 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 18 800 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Sienna has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |