Volvo XC90 II
Car comparison
Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T6vsCadillac XT5 3.6
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonCadillac XT5
3.6
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T6
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.5 s
- Fastest top speed240 km/h149 mph Unrestricted230 km/h143 mph Restricted
- Most powerful320 hp239 kW
- Highest torque400 Nm295 lb-ft
- Lowest combined fuel consumption8.0 L/100 km29.4 mpg US35.3 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption9.8 L/100 km24.0 mpg US28.8 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption7.0 L/100 km33.6 mpg US40.4 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions186 g/km
- Best estimated range888 km551 mi
- Best performance score59/100
- Best economy score85/100
Cadillac XT5 3.6
- Lightest1,931 kg4,257 lb
- Best power-to-weight163 hp/t121 kW/t6.1 kg/hp
- Largest trunk850 L
- Best overall score67/100
- Best practicality score92/100
Specification comparison
| Model | VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | CadillacXT53.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 320hp239kW | 314hp234kW |
| Torque | 400Nm295lb-ft | 368Nm271lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 2,078kg4,581lb | 1,931kg4,257lb |
| Gross weight | 2,750kg6,063lb | 2,550kg5,622lb |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph Calculated | Unrestricted 220 km/h137 mph Restricted 210 km/h130 mph Calculated |
| To 99% top speed | 84.3s99% target: 238 km/h / 148 mph Calculated | 78.5s99% target: 218 km/h / 135 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 6.5s | 7.5s |
| 0-200 km/h | 27.3s Calculated | 36.9s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 6.2s Calculated | 7.1s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 8L/100 km29.4mpg US35.3mpg UK | 10L/100 km23.5mpg US28.2mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 9.8L/100 km24mpg US28.8mpg UK | 14.1L/100 km16.7mpg US20.0mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 7L/100 km33.6mpg US40.4mpg UK | 7.6L/100 km30.9mpg US37.2mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 14.6s Calculated | 15.4s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 154hp/t115kW/t70hp/1000 lb Calculated | 163hp/t121kW/t74hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 192Nm/t129lb-ft/ton Calculated | 191Nm/t128lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 888km551mi Calculated | 830km516mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,969cc120cu in | 3,649cc223cu in |
| Length | 4,950mm195in | 4,815mm190in |
| Width | 1,923mm76in | 1,903mm75in |
| Height | 1,776mm70in | 1,675mm66in |
| Wheelbase | 2,984mm117in | 2,857mm112in |
| Front track | 1,676mm66in | 1,638mm64in |
| Rear track | 1,679mm66in | 1,638mm64in |
| Ground clearance | 238mm9in | 200mm8in |
| Trunk volume | 368L | 850L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,886L | 1,784L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 71L | 83L |
| CO2 emissions | 186g/km | 229g/km |
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 XC90 II 2.0 T6: Power / Torque
- Cadillac XT5 3.6: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | 5,700 rpm | 2,200-5,400 rpm | 5,950 rpm |
| CadillacXT53.6 | 6,700 rpm | 5,000 rpm | 7,200 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | CadillacXT53.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 6.2 s | 7.1 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 6.5 s | 7.5 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 27.3 s | 36.9 s |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph Likely limited | Unrestricted 220 km/h137 mph Restricted 210 km/h130 mph Likely limited |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.4 s | 2.5 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.3 s | 6.7 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.5 s | 10.1 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.3 s | 13.0 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 14.6 s | 15.4 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 157 km/h 98 mph | 149 km/h 93 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | 320 hp 239 kW |
| CadillacXT53.6 | 314 hp 234 kW |
Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T6 has 6 hp more than Cadillac XT5 3.6.
The biggest power difference is between Cadillac XT5 3.6 and Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T6: 6 hp (4 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft |
| CadillacXT53.6 | 368 Nm 271 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | 2,078 kg 4,581 lb |
| CadillacXT53.6 | 1,931 kg 4,257 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph |
| CadillacXT53.6 | Unrestricted 220 km/h137 mph Restricted 210 km/h130 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | 6.5 s |
| CadillacXT53.6 | 7.5 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T6 and Cadillac XT5 3.6: 1.0 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | 8.0 L/100 km 29.4 mpg US 35.3 mpg UK |
| CadillacXT53.6 | 10.0 L/100 km 23.5 mpg US 28.2 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T6 and Cadillac XT5 3.6: 2.0 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | 154 hp/t 115 kW/t 6.5 kg/hp |
| CadillacXT53.6 | 163 hp/t 121 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | 888 km 551 mi |
| CadillacXT53.6 | 830 km 516 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | 320 hp 239 kW | 6.5 s | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph |
| CadillacXT53.6 | 314 hp 234 kW | 7.5 s | Unrestricted 220 km/h137 mph Restricted 210 km/h130 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 | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| CadillacXT53.6 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
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 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 |
| 8.0 L/100 km 29.4 mpg US 35.3 mpg UK | ||||||
| CadillacXT53.6 |
| 10.0 L/100 km 23.5 mpg US 28.2 mpg UK | ||||||
Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T6 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 |
|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | 8.0 L/100 km 29.4 mpg US 35.3 mpg UK | 6.5 s |
| CadillacXT53.6 | 10.0 L/100 km 23.5 mpg US 28.2 mpg UK | 7.5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | 154 hp/t 115 kW/t 6.5 kg/hp | 8.0 L/100 km 29.4 mpg US 35.3 mpg UK |
| CadillacXT53.6 | 163 hp/t 121 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp | 10.0 L/100 km 23.5 mpg US 28.2 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | VolvoXC90 II2.0 T6 | CadillacXT53.6 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 320 hp 239 kW | 314 hp 234 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft | 368 Nm 271 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 6.5 s | 7.5 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph | Unrestricted 220 km/h137 mph Restricted 210 km/h130 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 2,078 kg 4,581 lb | 1,931 kg 4,257 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 8.0 L/100 km 29.4 mpg US 35.3 mpg UK | 10.0 L/100 km 23.5 mpg US 28.2 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 888 km 551 mi | 830 km 516 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 186 g/km | 229 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 368 L 13.0 cu ft | 850 L 30.0 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 154 hp/t 115 kW/t 6.5 kg/hp | 163 hp/t 121 kW/t 6.1 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 XC90 II 2.0 T6 | Cadillac XT5 3.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 8 L/100 km29.4 mpg US35.3 mpg UK | 10 L/100 km23.5 mpg US28.2 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 14.00 LC100 km | 17.50 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 22.53 LC100 mi | 28.16 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,200 L317 US gal264 UK gal | 1,500 L396 US gal330 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,100 LC/year | 2,625 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Volvo XC90 II 2.0 T6
- Has 6 hp more
- Has 32 Nm more
- Is 1.0 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 20 km/h (12 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 2.0 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 57 km (36 mi) more estimated range
- Emits 43 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Heaviest
- Smallest trunk
Cadillac XT5 3.6
- Is 147 kg lighter
- Has 9 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 482 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Lightest
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Lowest top speed
- Highest CO2 emissions
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























