Volvo XC60 2008 vs Audi Q5 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 3.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 285 HP | 270 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 330 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.5 seconds | 6.9 seconds | |
| Volvo XC60 engine produces 15 HP more power than Audi Q5, whereas torque is 70 NM more than Audi Q5. Despite the higher power, Volvo XC60 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.9 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.1 l/100km | 11.3 l/100km | |
|
The Audi Q5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC60 consumes 2.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo XC60 could require 390 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC60 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 780 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 570 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi Q5 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: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 230 mm (9.1 inches) | 200 mm (7.9 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 3 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo S80 | Used only for this car | |
| 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 Volvo XC60 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. | |||
| Audi Q5 2009 3.2 engine: This engine continues to suffer from a range of reliability concerns, many of which stem from cost-cutting on materials. One recurring issue involves low-grade gaskets used in critical areas like valve covers, ... More about Audi Q5 2009 3.2 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.63 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.65 m | |
| Volvo XC60 and Audi Q5 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 495 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1455 litres | 1560 litres | |
|
Audi Q5 has more luggage space. Volvo XC60 has 45 litres less trunk space than the Audi Q5. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Audi Q5 (by 105 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC60 is 0.3 metres more than that of the Audi Q5. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`440 | 2`415 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Audi Q5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo XC60 has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Audi Q5, so Audi Q5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8800 | 10 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC60 has
|
Audi Q5 has
| |