Volvo XC90 2002 vs Land Rover Discovery 1999
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.9 Petrol | 2.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Double-row 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: | 272 HP | 137 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 15.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC90 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo XC90 engine produces 135 HP more power than Land Rover Discovery, whereas torque is 80 NM more than Land Rover Discovery. Thanks to more power Volvo XC90 reaches 100 km/h speed 6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 13.0 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 15.9 l/100km | 10.3 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Discovery is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC90 consumes 3.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Discovery, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo XC90 could require 540 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC90 consumes 5.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Discovery. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 95 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 530 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km on highway | 1150 km on highway | ||
| 440 km with real consumption | 920 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Discovery gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - Full time 4WD | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 480'000 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 Land Rover Discovery engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Land Rover Defender | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Land Rover Discovery 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.94 m | |
|
Volvo XC90 is larger, but lower. Volvo XC90 is 10 cm longer than the Land Rover Discovery, 2 cm wider, while the height of Volvo XC90 is 20 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 249 litres | 1290 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2404 litres | 1970 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Volvo XC90 has 1041 litres less trunk space than the Land Rover Discovery. 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 434 litres). | |||
| 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 Discovery, which means Volvo XC90 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`760 | 2`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC90 has
|
Land Rover Discovery has
| |