Volvo XC90 2002 vs Land Rover Range Rover 1995
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
| 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: | 163 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 17.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC90 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo XC90 engine produces 27 HP more power than Land Rover Range Rover, whereas torque is 70 NM more than Land Rover Range Rover. Thanks to more power Volvo XC90 reaches 100 km/h speed 5.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 11.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 11.9 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC90 consumes 2.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover, which means that by driving the Volvo XC90 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 345 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 Land Rover Range Rover. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 90 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 420'000 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 XC90 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70, Volvo C30 | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.71 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.82 m | |
|
Volvo XC90 is larger, but lower. Volvo XC90 is 9 cm longer than the Land Rover Range Rover, 1 cm wider, while the height of Volvo XC90 is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 249 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2404 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.7 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC90 is 0.8 metres more than that of the Land Rover Range Rover, which means Volvo XC90 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`735 | 3`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 3400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.1/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC90 has
|
Land Rover Range Rover has
| |