Volvo XC60 II
Car comparison
Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5vsLand Rover Range Rover Velar D 240 2.0
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonLand Rover Range Rover Velar
D 240 2.0
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Land Rover Range Rover Velar D 240 2.0
- Most powerful240 hp179 kW
- Highest torque500 Nm369 lb-ft
- Lightest1,841 kg4,059 lb
- Best power-to-weight130 hp/t97 kW/t7.7 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption5.8 L/100 km40.6 mpg US48.7 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption5.1 L/100 km46.1 mpg US55.4 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions154 g/km
- Largest trunk673 L
- Best overall score66/100
- Best performance score54/100
- Best practicality score91/100
Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5
- Quickest 0-100 km/h7.2 s
- Fastest top speed220 km/h137 mph
- Lowest city consumption6.8 L/100 km34.6 mpg US41.5 mpg UK
- Best estimated range1,183 km735 mi
- Best economy score91/100
Specification comparison
| Model | VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5 | Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 235hp175kW | 240hp179kW |
| Torque | 480Nm354lb-ft | 500Nm369lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 2,051kg4,522lb | 1,841kg4,059lb |
| Top speed | 220 km/h 137 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 82.8s99% target: 218 km/h / 135 mph Calculated | 84.1s99% target: 215 km/h / 133 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.2s | 7.3s |
| 0-200 km/h | 37.7s Calculated | 40.9s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 6.8s Calculated | 6.9s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 6L/100 km39.2mpg US47.1mpg UK | 5.8L/100 km40.6mpg US48.7mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 6.8L/100 km34.6mpg US41.5mpg UK | 7.2L/100 km32.7mpg US39.2mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 5.5L/100 km42.8mpg US51.4mpg UK | 5.1L/100 km46.1mpg US55.4mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 15.2s Calculated | 15.3s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 115hp/t85kW/t52hp/1000 lb Calculated | 130hp/t97kW/t59hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 234Nm/t157lb-ft/ton Calculated | 272Nm/t182lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 1,183km735mi Calculated | 1,034km643mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,969cc120cu in | 1,999cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,688mm185in | 4,803mm189in |
| Width | 1,902mm75in | - |
| Height | 1,658mm65in | 1,665mm66in |
| Wheelbase | 2,865mm113in | 2,874mm113in |
| Front track | 1,668mm66in | 1,644mm65in |
| Rear track | 1,673mm66in | 1,663mm65in |
| Ground clearance | 216mm9in | 251mm10in |
| Trunk volume | 505L | 673L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,432L | 1,731L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 71L | 60L |
| CO2 emissions | 158g/km | 154g/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 D5: Power / Torque
- Land Rover Range Rover Velar D 240 2.0: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5 | 4,000 rpm | 1,740-2,220 rpm | 5,000 rpm |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 | 4,000 rpm | 1,500 rpm | 4,250 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5 | Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 6.8 s | 6.9 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 7.2 s | 7.3 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 37.7 s | 40.9 s |
| Top speed | 220 km/h 137 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.4 s | 2.4 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.5 s | 6.5 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.9 s | 9.9 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.8 s | 12.8 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.2 s | 15.3 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 149 km/h 92 mph | 147 km/h 91 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5 | 235 hp 175 kW |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 | 240 hp 179 kW |
Land Rover Range Rover Velar D 240 2.0 has 5 hp more than Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5.
The biggest power difference is between Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5 and Land Rover Range Rover Velar D 240 2.0: 5 hp (4 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5 | 480 Nm 354 lb-ft |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 | 500 Nm 369 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5 | 2,051 kg 4,522 lb |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 | 1,841 kg 4,059 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 D5 | 220 km/h 137 mph |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 | 217 km/h 135 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5 | 7.2 s |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 | 7.3 s |
Although Land Rover Range Rover Velar D 240 2.0 has more power, Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5 is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5 and Land Rover Range Rover Velar D 240 2.0: 0.1 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 D5 | 6.0 L/100 km 39.2 mpg US 47.1 mpg UK |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 | 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 mpg UK |
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5 | 115 hp/t 85 kW/t 8.7 kg/hp |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 | 130 hp/t 97 kW/t 7.7 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5 | 1,183 km 735 mi |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 | 1,034 km 643 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5 | 235 hp 175 kW | 7.2 s | 220 km/h 137 mph |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 | 240 hp 179 kW | 7.3 s | 217 km/h 135 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 D5 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
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 D5 |
| 6.0 L/100 km 39.2 mpg US 47.1 mpg UK | ||||||
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 |
| 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 mpg UK | ||||||
Land Rover Range Rover Velar D 240 2.0 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 D5 | 6.0 L/100 km 39.2 mpg US 47.1 mpg UK | 7.2 s |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 | 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 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 D5 | 115 hp/t 85 kW/t 8.7 kg/hp | 6.0 L/100 km 39.2 mpg US 47.1 mpg UK |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 | 130 hp/t 97 kW/t 7.7 kg/hp | 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | VolvoXC60 II2.0 D5 | Land RoverRange Rover VelarD 240 2.0 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 235 hp 175 kW | 240 hp 179 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 480 Nm 354 lb-ft | 500 Nm 369 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 7.2 s | 7.3 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 220 km/h 137 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 2,051 kg 4,522 lb | 1,841 kg 4,059 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 6.0 L/100 km 39.2 mpg US 47.1 mpg UK | 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 1,183 km 735 mi | 1,034 km 643 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 158 g/km | 154 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 505 L 17.8 cu ft | 673 L 23.8 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 115 hp/t 85 kW/t 8.7 kg/hp | 130 hp/t 97 kW/t 7.7 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 D5 | Land Rover Range Rover Velar D 240 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 6 L/100 km39.2 mpg US47.1 mpg UK | 5.8 L/100 km40.6 mpg US48.7 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 10.50 LC100 km | 10.15 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 16.90 LC100 mi | 16.33 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 900 L238 US gal198 UK gal | 870 L230 US gal191 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,575 LC/year | 1,523 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Volvo XC60 II 2.0 D5
- Is 0.1 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 3 km/h (2 mph) higher top speed
- Has 149 km (92 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Smallest trunk
- Highest CO2 emissions
Land Rover Range Rover Velar D 240 2.0
- Has 5 hp more
- Has 20 Nm more
- Is 210 kg lighter
- Uses 0.2 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 16 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 168 L more trunk volume
- Emits 4 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest top speed
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























