Volvo XC90 2003 vs BMW X5 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 3.0 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: | 210 HP | 231 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
|
BMW X5 is a more dynamic driving. Volvo XC90 engine produces 21 HP less power than BMW X5, but torque is 20 NM more than BMW X5. Due to the lower power, Volvo XC90 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 12.0 | 13.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.1 l/100km | 14.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC90 consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW X5, which means that by driving the Volvo XC90 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC90 consumes 2.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW X5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 93 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 570 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW X5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 460'000 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 BMW X5 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70 | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW 7 sērija, BMW X3, BMW Z4 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The BMW X5 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: | 4.80 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.72 m | |
|
Volvo XC90 is larger. Volvo XC90 is 13 cm longer than the BMW X5, 3 cm wider, while the height of Volvo XC90 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 249 litres | 465 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2404 litres | 1550 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Volvo XC90 has 216 litres less trunk space than the BMW X5. This could mean that the Volvo XC90 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo XC90 (by 854 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.7 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC90 is 0.7 metres more than that of the BMW X5, which means Volvo XC90 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`720 | 2`620 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| BMW X5 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Volvo XC90, so BMW X5 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 5400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.1/10 | 8.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC90 has
|
BMW X5 has
| |