Volvo XC90 2002 vs Mercedes ML 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 3.0 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 | 224 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 510 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 8.6 seconds | |
|
Mercedes ML is a more dynamic driving. Volvo XC90 engine produces 61 HP less power than Mercedes ML, whereas torque is 170 NM less than Mercedes ML. Due to the lower power, Volvo XC90 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 10.8 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC90 consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes ML, which means that by driving the Volvo XC90 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC90 consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes ML. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 95 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 1260 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 870 km with real consumption | ||
| Mercedes ML gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70, Volvo C30 | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Mercedes C klase, Mercedes E klase, Mercedes G klase | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mercedes ML might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Volvo XC90 2002 2.4 engine: These diesel engines are frequently affected by intake manifold swirl flap seizures. This issue often leads to airflow disruptions and rough engine operation.
The actuator for the turbocharger, which relies ... More about Volvo XC90 2002 2.4 engine Mercedes ML 2005 3.0 engine: A reliable yet dynamic engine. Frequent oil leaks, engine crankcase ventilation problems. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.78 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.91 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.82 m | |
| Volvo XC90 is 2 cm longer than the Mercedes ML, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo XC90 is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 249 litres | 551 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2404 litres | no data | |
|
Mercedes ML has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Volvo XC90 has 302 litres less trunk space than the Mercedes ML. This could mean that the Volvo XC90 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.7 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC90 is 0.7 metres more than that of the Mercedes ML, which means Volvo XC90 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`735 | 2`830 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 5800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.1/10 | 9.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC90 has
|
Mercedes ML has
| |