Volvo XC90 2005 vs Nissan X-Trail 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | 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: | 185 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 314 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC90 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo XC90 engine produces 49 HP more power than Nissan X-Trail, whereas torque is 86 NM more than Nissan X-Trail. Thanks to more power Volvo XC90 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC90 consumes 1.1 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 XC90 could require 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC90 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 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 | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70, Volvo XC60 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Nissan Almera, Nissan Primera, Nissan Almera Tino | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volvo XC90 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. | |||
| Volvo XC90 2005 2.4 engine: The early versions of these engines are known for their reliability and rare failures, which made them popular.
However, engine have several common weaknesses. Intake manifold swirl flaps often seize, and ... More about Volvo XC90 2005 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Volvo XC90 is larger. Volvo XC90 is 29 cm longer than the Nissan X-Trail, 14 cm wider, while the height of Volvo XC90 is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 249 litres | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2404 litres | 1841 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Volvo XC90 has 161 litres less trunk space than the Nissan X-Trail. 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 563 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.7 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC90 is 2.1 metres more than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Volvo XC90 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`740 | 2`050 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Nissan X-Trail has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo XC90 has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Nissan X-Trail, so Nissan X-Trail quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 2600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.1/10 | 7.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC90 has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |