Volvo XC60 2013 vs Nissan X-Trail 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 306 HP | 144 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.9 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo XC60 engine produces 162 HP more power than Nissan X-Trail, whereas torque is 200 NM more than Nissan X-Trail. Thanks to more power Volvo XC60 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 7.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.1 l/100km | 9.3 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC60 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo XC60 could require 30 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC60 consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 630 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 300'000 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 Volvo XC60 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Serena | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan X-Trail might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.72 m | |
|
Volvo XC60 is larger, but slightly lower. Volvo XC60 and Nissan X-Trail are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 495 litres | 497 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1455 litres | no data | |
| Volvo XC60 has 2 litres less trunk space than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.7 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC60 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Volvo XC60 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`390 | 1`990 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan X-Trail has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 16 000 | 12 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC60 has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |