Volvo XC90 2006 vs Mercedes ML 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 3.0 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 | 224 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 510 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 8.6 seconds | |
|
Mercedes ML is a more dynamic driving. Volvo XC90 engine produces 39 HP less power than Mercedes ML, whereas torque is 110 NM less than Mercedes ML. Due to the lower power, Volvo XC90 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.1 l/100km | 10.8 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC90 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes ML, which means that by driving the Volvo XC90 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC90 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes ML. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 68 litres | 95 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1260 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 870 km with real consumption | ||
| Mercedes ML gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 20 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 9 other car models, including Mercedes C klase, Mercedes E klase, Mercedes G klase | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mercedes ML might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Volvo XC90 2006 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 2006 2.4 engine Mercedes ML 2005 3.0 engine: A reliable yet dynamic engine. Frequent oil leaks, engine crankcase ventilation problems. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.81 m | 4.78 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.91 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.82 m | |
| Volvo XC90 is 3 cm longer than the Mercedes ML, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo XC90 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 249 litres | 551 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 249 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 613 litres | 551 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1837 litres | no data | |
| In 5-seat version Volvo XC90 has more luggage space (by 62 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.5 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC90 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mercedes ML, which means Volvo XC90 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`750 | 2`830 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 8400 | 5800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.9/10 | 9.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC90 has
|
Mercedes ML has
| |