Volvo XC90 2002 vs Volvo XC90 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.9 Petrol | 3.2 Petrol | |
| 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: | 272 HP | 243 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 9.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC90 2002 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo XC90 2002 engine produces 29 HP more power than Volvo XC90 2010, whereas torque is 60 NM more than Volvo XC90 2010. Thanks to more power Volvo XC90 2002 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 13.0 | 11.5 | |
|
The Volvo XC90 2010 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volvo XC90 2002 consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90 2010, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo XC90 2002 could require 225 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 530 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| Volvo XC90 2010 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 500'000 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 2010 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo XC90 2010 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.91 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Volvo XC90 2002 is smaller. Volvo XC90 2002 is 1 cm shorter than the Volvo XC90 2010, width is practically the same , while the height of Volvo XC90 2002 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 249 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 249 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 249 litres | 613 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2404 litres | 1837 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Volvo XC90 2010 has more luggage space (by 364 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo XC90 2002 (by 567 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.7 meters | 12.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC90 2002 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volvo XC90 2010. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`760 | 2`760 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | low | |
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 8400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.1/10 | 8.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC90 has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |