Volvo XC60 II
Car comparison
Volvo XC60 II 2.0 T6vsLand Rover Range Rover Sport II · Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonLand Rover Range Rover Sport II · Facelift 2017
2.0 Si4
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Volvo XC60 II 2.0 T6
- Quickest 0-100 km/h5.9 s
- Fastest top speed240 km/h149 mph Unrestricted230 km/h143 mph Restricted
- Most powerful310 hp231 kW
- Highest torque400 Nm295 lb-ft
- Lightest2,016 kg4,445 lb
- Best power-to-weight154 hp/t115 kW/t6.5 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption7.8 L/100 km30.2 mpg US36.2 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption9.5 L/100 km24.8 mpg US29.7 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption6.8 L/100 km34.6 mpg US41.5 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions181 g/km
- Largest trunk505 L
- Best overall score69/100
- Best performance score61/100
- Best economy score86/100
- Best practicality score85/100
Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4
- Best estimated range1,106 km687 mi
Specification comparison
| Model | VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 310hp231kW | 300hp224kW |
| Torque | 400Nm295lb-ft | 400Nm295lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 2,016kg4,445lb | 2,083kg4,592lb |
| Gross weight | - | 3,000kg6,614lb |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph Calculated | 201 km/h 125 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 71.4s99% target: 238 km/h / 148 mph Calculated | 79.4s99% target: 199 km/h / 124 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 5.9s | 7.3s |
| 0-200 km/h | 23.8s Calculated | 94.8s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 5.6s Calculated | 6.9s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 7.8L/100 km30.2mpg US36.2mpg UK | 9.4L/100 km25mpg US30.1mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 9.5L/100 km24.8mpg US29.7mpg UK | 11.4L/100 km20.6mpg US24.8mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 6.8L/100 km34.6mpg US41.5mpg UK | 8.2L/100 km28.7mpg US34.4mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 14.1s Calculated | 15.4s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 154hp/t115kW/t70hp/1000 lb Calculated | 144hp/t107kW/t65hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 198Nm/t133lb-ft/ton Calculated | 192Nm/t128lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 910km566mi Calculated | 1,106km687mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,969cc120cu in | 1,997cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,688mm185in | 4,879mm192in |
| Width | 1,902mm75in | 2,073mm82in |
| Height | 1,658mm65in | 1,803mm71in |
| Wheelbase | 2,865mm113in | 2,923mm115in |
| Front track | - | 1,693mm67in |
| Rear track | - | 1,686mm66in |
| Ground clearance | 216mm9in | 278mm11in |
| Trunk volume | 505L | 221L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,432L | 1,686L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 7 |
| Fuel tank | 71L | 104L |
| CO2 emissions | 181g/km | 214g/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 XC60 II 2.0 T6: Power / Torque
- Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | 5,700 rpm | 2,220-5,100 rpm | 6,000 rpm |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 5,500 rpm | 1,500-4,000 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 5.6 s | 6.9 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 5.9 s | 7.3 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 23.8 s | 94.8 s |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph Likely limited | 201 km/h 125 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.3 s | 2.3 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.1 s | 6.4 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.2 s | 9.8 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 11.8 s | 12.8 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 14.1 s | 15.4 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 163 km/h 101 mph | 143 km/h 89 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | 310 hp 231 kW |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 300 hp 224 kW |
Volvo XC60 II 2.0 T6 has 10 hp more than Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4.
The biggest power difference is between Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4 and Volvo XC60 II 2.0 T6: 10 hp (7 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | 2,016 kg 4,445 lb |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 2,083 kg 4,592 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 201 km/h 125 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | 5.9 s |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 7.3 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Volvo XC60 II 2.0 T6 and Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4: 1.4 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | 7.8 L/100 km 30.2 mpg US 36.2 mpg UK |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Volvo XC60 II 2.0 T6 and Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4: 1.6 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | 154 hp/t 115 kW/t 6.5 kg/hp |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 144 hp/t 107 kW/t 6.9 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | 910 km 566 mi |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 1,106 km 687 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | 310 hp 231 kW | 5.9 s | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 300 hp 224 kW | 7.3 s | 201 km/h 125 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 | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
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 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 |
| 7.8 L/100 km 30.2 mpg US 36.2 mpg UK | ||||||
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 |
| 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK | ||||||
Volvo XC60 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 |
|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | 7.8 L/100 km 30.2 mpg US 36.2 mpg UK | 5.9 s |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK | 7.3 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 |
|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | 154 hp/t 115 kW/t 6.5 kg/hp | 7.8 L/100 km 30.2 mpg US 36.2 mpg UK |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 144 hp/t 107 kW/t 6.9 kg/hp | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | VolvoXC60 II2.0 T6 | Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 310 hp 231 kW | 300 hp 224 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 5.9 s | 7.3 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph | 201 km/h 125 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 2,016 kg 4,445 lb | 2,083 kg 4,592 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 7.8 L/100 km 30.2 mpg US 36.2 mpg UK | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 910 km 566 mi | 1,106 km 687 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 181 g/km | 214 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 505 L 17.8 cu ft | 221 L 7.8 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 154 hp/t 115 kW/t 6.5 kg/hp | 144 hp/t 107 kW/t 6.9 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 XC60 II 2.0 T6 | Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 7.8 L/100 km30.2 mpg US36.2 mpg UK | 9.4 L/100 km25 mpg US30.1 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 13.65 LC100 km | 16.45 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 21.97 LC100 mi | 26.47 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,170 L309 US gal257 UK gal | 1,410 L372 US gal310 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,048 LC/year | 2,468 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Volvo XC60 II 2.0 T6
- Has 10 hp more
- Is 67 kg lighter
- Is 1.4 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 39 km/h (24 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 1.6 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 10 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 284 L more trunk volume
- Emits 33 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Largest trunk
Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4
- Has 196 km (122 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
- Highest CO2 emissions
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























