Land Rover Freelander 2012 vs Volvo XC60 2008
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 2.0 - 2.2 | 2.0 - 3.0 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 - 240 HP | 163 - 285 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 - 420 NM | 300 - 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 - 11.7 seconds | 7.5 - 10.9 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 - 9.6 | 6.0 - 11.9 | |
|
Land Rover Freelander petrol engines consumes on average 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than Volvo XC60. On average, Land Rover Freelander equipped with diesel engines consume 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.50 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.91 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.71 m | |
| Land Rover Freelander is 13 cm shorter than the Volvo XC60, 2 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Freelander is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 405 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1455 litres | |
|
Volvo XC60 has more luggage space. Land Rover Freelander has 90 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 12.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Freelander is 0.8 metres less than that of the Volvo XC60, which means Land Rover Freelander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`505 | ~ 2`499 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 9600 | 9000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |