Last Update: Apr. 03, 2020, 5:10 a.m.
Home >>> >>> Volvo V90 and Alfa Romeo Crosswagon

What is Better Volvo V90 or Alfa Romeo Crosswagon?

Comparing Volvo V90 with Alfa Romeo Crosswagon might help buyers make decision which vehicle is more efficient. The comparison found 8 factors to choose Volvo V90 - it's above Alfa Romeo Crosswagon, according to these specs. But Alfa Romeo Crosswagon also has got a lot of advantages: think about 2 reasons why it's beating Volvo V90. We summarized data about the cars to present a fair match of Alfa Romeo Crosswagon with Volvo V90. So our experts offer everyone compare two cars and decide which vehicle you'd want to purchase. V90 was produced by Volvo to win competitors in the sphere. Motorists say that Alfa Romeo really did everything to turn Crosswagon into a real success. If you had the chance, which model would you choose?

Exterior

Volvo V90 Alfa Romeo Crosswagon

8 reasons to buy Volvo V90

Engine and transmission
More cylinders 6 vs 4 2 more cylinders. The more cylinders = the less vibration and the engine runs more smoothly.
More engine power

204 bhp vs 150 bhp

vs 109 kw.

26% or 54 bhp. More power of car = more top speed.
Performance
Faster acceleration from 0 to 60 mph 9.0 sec. vs 10.50 sec. 1.5 sec.
More top speed 130 mph vs 119 mph 11 mph
Fuel consumption
Less fuel consumption (Combined cycle) 23.6 mpg vs 40 mpg 69% or 16.4 mpg
Weight and capacity
More maximum towing weight without brakes 700 kg vs 500 kg 29% or 200 kg
More maximum towing weight with brakes 1800 kg vs 1450 kg 19% or 350 kg
Other specs
Less turning radius 9 meters vs 11.00 meters 22% or 2 meters

2 reasons to buy Alfa Romeo Crosswagon

Engine and transmission
More valves per cylinder 16 vs 4 12 more valves per cylinder. The more valves = the better combustion of the fuel.
Other specs
Less weight 1505 kg vs 1617 kg 7% or 112 kg Weight of the vehicle affects: fuel consumption, acceleration dynamic, braking distance, etc.

Neutral reasons Volvo V90 vs. Alfa Romeo Crosswagon

Engine and transmission
Engine capacity 2922 cm3 vs 1910 cm3 35% or 1012 cm3 more
Turbocharging Yes vs Yes
Speeds 4 vs 6 2 less
Dimensions
Length 4876 mm vs 4441 mm 9% or 435 mm shorter
Width 1981 mm vs 1765 mm 11% or 216 mm wider
Height 1450 mm vs 1497 mm 3% or 47 mm lower
Wheels and tires
Wheelbase 2770 mm vs 2595 mm 6% or 175 mm more
*Specs may vary depending on configurations and year of production(taken parameters of last released versions)