Volvo XC90 2002 vs Opel Frontera 1998
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 2.2 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 | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 260 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 14.6 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC90 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo XC90 engine produces 48 HP more power than Opel Frontera, whereas torque is 80 NM more than Opel Frontera. Thanks to more power Volvo XC90 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 8.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Frontera is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC90 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Opel Frontera, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo XC90 could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC90 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Opel Frontera. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 1040 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 870 km with real consumption | ||
| Opel Frontera 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: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 440'000 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 | 4 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 2 other car models, including Opel Omega, Opel Sintra | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo XC90 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 | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Volvo XC90 is larger. Volvo XC90 is 14 cm longer than the Opel Frontera, 11 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 249 litres | 389 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
2404 litres | 1790 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, 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 614 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.7 meters | 11.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC90 is 1.2 metres more than that of the Opel Frontera, which means Volvo XC90 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`735 kg | 2`450 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC90 has
|
Opel Frontera has
| |