Volvo V90 1997 vs Volkswagen Polo 1997
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.9 Petrol | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 204 HP | 64 HP | |
| Torque: | 267 NM | 124 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 16.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo V90 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo V90 engine produces 140 HP more power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 143 NM more than Volkswagen Polo. Thanks to more power Volvo V90 reaches 100 km/h speed 7.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.4 | 5.1 | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volvo V90 consumes 6.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo V90 could require 945 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 1090 km on highway | ||
| Volkswagen Polo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volkswagen Polo) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Volvo V90) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 700'000 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 Volkswagen Polo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo 960, Volvo S90 | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Audi 80, Seat Toledo, Skoda Felicia | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Polo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.86 m | 4.14 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.64 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Volvo V90 is larger. Volvo V90 is 72 cm longer than the Volkswagen Polo, 11 cm wider, while the height of Volvo V90 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 602 litres | 390 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1702 litres | 1250 litres | |
|
Volvo V90 has more luggage capacity. Volvo V90 has 212 litres more trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V90 (by 452 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.7 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V90 is 1.2 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Polo, which means Volvo V90 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`100 | 1`620 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 2200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V90 has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |