Volvo XC90 2005 vs Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 2.7 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 185 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 12.7 seconds | |
| Volvo XC90 engine produces 5 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover Sport, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Sport. Despite less power, Volvo XC90 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 | 10.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.8 l/100km | 11.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC90 consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, which means that by driving the Volvo XC90 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC90 consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 82 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 710 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 330'000 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 | Used also on Land Rover Discovery | |
| 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 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 | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.93 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.78 m | |
| Volvo XC90 is 1 cm longer than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo XC90 is 4 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 | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC90 is 1.1 metres more than that of the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, which means Volvo XC90 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`750 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 5600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC90 has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
| |