Volvo V70 II · Facelift 2004
Car comparison
Volvo V70 II · Facelift 2004 2.5TvsCadillac BLS Wagon 2.0 T
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonCadillac BLS Wagon
2.0 T
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Volvo V70 II Facelift 2004 2.5T
- Quickest 0-100 km/h7.4 s
- Fastest top speed240 km/h149 mph Unrestricted230 km/h143 mph Restricted
- Most powerful210 hp157 kW
- Highest torque320 Nm236 lb-ft
- Best estimated range761 km473 mi
- Largest trunk485 L
- Best overall score62/100
- Best performance score52/100
- Best practicality score83/100
Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.0 T
- Lightest1,535 kg3,384 lb
- Best power-to-weight137 hp/t102 kW/t7.3 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption8.3 L/100 km28.3 mpg US34.0 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption11.5 L/100 km20.5 mpg US24.6 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption6.5 L/100 km36.2 mpg US43.5 mpg UK
- Best economy score85/100
Specification comparison
| Model | VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 210hp157kW | 210hp157kW |
| Torque | 320Nm236lb-ft | 300Nm221lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,595kg3,516lb | 1,535kg3,384lb |
| Gross weight | 2,130kg4,696lb | 2,080kg4,586lb |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph Calculated | Unrestricted 230 km/h143 mph Restricted 220 km/h137 mph Calculated |
| To 99% top speed | 76.0s99% target: 238 km/h / 148 mph Calculated | 75.7s99% target: 228 km/h / 141 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.4s | 7.8s |
| 0-200 km/h | 27.3s Calculated | 31.2s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 7.0s Calculated | 7.4s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 9.2L/100 km25.6mpg US30.7mpg UK | 8.3L/100 km28.3mpg US34.0mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 12.9L/100 km18.2mpg US21.9mpg UK | 11.5L/100 km20.5mpg US24.6mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 7.1L/100 km33.1mpg US39.8mpg UK | 6.5L/100 km36.2mpg US43.5mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 15.3s Calculated | 15.6s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 132hp/t98kW/t60hp/1000 lb Calculated | 137hp/t102kW/t62hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 201Nm/t134lb-ft/ton Calculated | 195Nm/t131lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 761km473mi Calculated | 699km434mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 2,521cc154cu in | 1,998cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,710mm185in | 4,716mm186in |
| Width | 1,804mm71in | 1,802mm71in |
| Height | 1,465mm58in | 1,543mm61in |
| Wheelbase | 2,755mm108in | 2,675mm105in |
| Front track | 1,551mm61in | 1,524mm60in |
| Rear track | 1,548mm61in | 1,506mm59in |
| Ground clearance | - | 127mm5in |
| Trunk volume | 485L | 419L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,641L | 1,273L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 70L | 58L |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Volvo V70 II Facelift 2004 2.5T: Power / Torque
- Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.0 T: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | 5,000 rpm | 1,500-4,500 rpm | 5,250 rpm |
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T | 5,300 rpm | 2,500-4,000 rpm | 5,550 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 7.0 s | 7.4 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 7.4 s | 7.8 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 27.3 s | 31.2 s |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph Likely limited | Unrestricted 230 km/h143 mph Restricted 220 km/h137 mph Likely limited |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.7 s | 2.7 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.8 s | 7.0 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.1 s | 10.3 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.9 s | 13.2 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.3 s | 15.6 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 156 km/h 97 mph | 152 km/h 94 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | 210 hp 157 kW |
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T | 210 hp 157 kW |
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | 320 Nm 236 lb-ft |
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T | 300 Nm 221 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | 1,595 kg 3,516 lb |
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T | 1,535 kg 3,384 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph |
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T | Unrestricted 230 km/h143 mph Restricted 220 km/h137 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | 7.4 s |
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T | 7.8 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Volvo V70 II Facelift 2004 2.5T and Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.0 T: 0.4 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | 9.2 L/100 km 25.6 mpg US 30.7 mpg UK |
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T | 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.0 T and Volvo V70 II Facelift 2004 2.5T: 0.9 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | 132 hp/t 98 kW/t 7.6 kg/hp |
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T | 137 hp/t 102 kW/t 7.3 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | 761 km 473 mi |
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T | 699 km 434 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | 210 hp 157 kW | 7.4 s | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph |
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T | 210 hp 157 kW | 7.8 s | Unrestricted 230 km/h143 mph Restricted 220 km/h137 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T |
| 9.2 L/100 km 25.6 mpg US 30.7 mpg UK | ||||||
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T |
| 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK | ||||||
Volvo V70 II Facelift 2004 2.5T is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | 9.2 L/100 km 25.6 mpg US 30.7 mpg UK | 7.4 s |
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T | 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK | 7.8 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | 132 hp/t 98 kW/t 7.6 kg/hp | 9.2 L/100 km 25.6 mpg US 30.7 mpg UK |
| CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T | 137 hp/t 102 kW/t 7.3 kg/hp | 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | VolvoV70 IIFacelift 20042.5T | CadillacBLS Wagon2.0 T | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 210 hp 157 kW | 210 hp 157 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 320 Nm 236 lb-ft | 300 Nm 221 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 7.4 s | 7.8 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph | Unrestricted 230 km/h143 mph Restricted 220 km/h137 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,595 kg 3,516 lb | 1,535 kg 3,384 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 9.2 L/100 km 25.6 mpg US 30.7 mpg UK | 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 761 km 473 mi | 699 km 434 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 485 L 17.1 cu ft | 419 L 14.8 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 132 hp/t 98 kW/t 7.6 kg/hp | 137 hp/t 102 kW/t 7.3 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Volvo V70 II Facelift 2004 2.5T | Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.0 T |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 9.2 L/100 km25.6 mpg US30.7 mpg UK | 8.3 L/100 km28.3 mpg US34 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 16.10 LC100 km | 14.53 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 25.91 LC100 mi | 23.38 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,380 L365 US gal304 UK gal | 1,245 L329 US gal274 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,415 LC/year | 2,179 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Volvo V70 II Facelift 2004 2.5T
- Has 20 Nm more
- Is 0.4 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 10 km/h (6 mph) higher top speed
- Has 62 km (39 mi) more estimated range
- Has 66 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Best estimated range
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
Cadillac BLS Wagon 2.0 T
- Is 60 kg lighter
- Uses 0.9 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 5 hp/t better power-to-weight
Pros
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























