Audi 80 1992 vs Volvo XC60 2009
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | 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: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 165 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Audi 80 engine produces 87 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 135 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Audi 80 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 8.0 | |
|
The Volvo XC60 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Audi 80 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Audi 80 could require 105 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 66 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| Volvo XC60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 135 mm (5.3 inches) | 230 mm (9.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC60 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Volvo XC60 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from eleven 4x4 versions of Volvo XC60 2009 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 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 Audi 80 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 1 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Audi A6, Audi 100 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo V60 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Audi 80 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: | 4.48 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Audi 80 is smaller. Audi 80 is 15 cm shorter than the Volvo XC60, 19 cm narrower, while the height of Audi 80 is 30 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 370 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1200 litres | 1455 litres | |
|
Volvo XC60 has more luggage space. Audi 80 has 125 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC60. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo XC60 (by 255 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`820 | 2`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 9400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.3/10 | 7.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi 80 has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |