Under Volvo’s new 2.0-litre fourcylinder edict, the XC90’s 222bhp diesel engine is outgunned by the Range Rover’s 3.0-litre V6, but only by 32bhp. Claimed figures pitch the Volvo at two tonnes and the Range Rover at 150kg more but, in reality, the difference is probably at least 300kg, which helps to explain identical 0-60mph times of 7.4sec. However, the Range Rover’s bigger lump turns out 443lb ft of torque, compared with the Volvo’s 347lb ft.
The TDV6’s character suits the Range Rover’s image. It’s a muted grumbler of an engine that pulls happily from 1500rpm and has a broad powerband, yielding linear delivery for the next 2500rpm, although the bellowing mid-range becomes a slightly strained churn towards the top. During most driving, though, it’s suitably refined.
Although Volvo’s four-pot is more advanced than the Range Rover’s engine, it is a bit less civil. It impresses with unhesitating tug from a mere 1000rpm and promptly gets into a steady, humming stride, but it needs to be goaded above 3500rpm before delivering its best, at which point there’s more noise than in the Range Rover. But both engines are whisper-quiet at a cruise, and if you hadn’t experienced the Range Rover’s superior sound deadening, you mightn’t yearn for it in the Volvo.
Their eight-speed automatic transmissions are equally keen on low revs, and although each has a usefully responsive step in the throttle pedal to request kickdown, only the Range Rover has steering wheel-mounted paddles. The Volvo makes do with a shifter-based manual override. Neither ’box shifts with whipcrack pace. Rather, they fudge nonchalantly between ratios in a manner entirely appropriate to big, comfortable cars.

Speaking of which, it’s the Range Rover’s ride that impresses the most, especially in town, where it smothers scars and ridges with an ease that the Volvo can’t match. That’s not to say the XC90 is a bag of nerves up the high street – in fact, it’s suitably composed – but a bit more body movement and suspension noise mean that it lacks the nuclear bunker isolation of the Range Rover.
For the most part, the Vogue retains this serenity beyond the city limits, riding longer waves of asphalt with assured luxury, but a sharp ridge taken at speed can produce an unseemly thump from the chassis. The Volvo won’t quash such bumps entirely but limits them to a distant thud. The XC90 provides more cornering composure, too, aided not only by its lower weight but also a 20mm drop from the air suspension that happens automatically at pace or by choosing the Dynamic drive mode. It turns in smartly and roll is kept nicely in check.
Deprived of the active anti-roll bars exclusive to V8 versions, this ‘basic’ Range Rover can’t perform the same mass-defying cornering feats that make its costlier siblings twirl nimbly through apices like plus-size ballerinas. There’s plenty of stability, of course, but speeds must be tempered to keep roll within comfortable limits, and although both cars grip well, the Range Rover drifts into juddery understeer first. Make no mistake: the Vogue is impressively agile for such a tall, heavy car, but of the two, you could only call the XC90’s attitude car-like across twisty roads – albeit a car that’s more capable than engaging.
Join the debate
Ex Cop
Volvo all day, every day.
Red Merle
Not my recent experience...
I've been running 3 Freelander 2's and a Disco 4 since and they've been every bit as good as my old V70's. It was a conversation with Highways England drivers (who run their Disco's for 3 years and between 250,000 and 320,000 miles) that convinced me that a new Disco 4 was a safe bet with my own money. 12 Months and 31,000 miles later, it seems they were right.
I'd happily take a current RR over a current Volvo.
289
suggestion for Autocar
This is what has stopped me considering one for the last 20 years.....in fact the last Range Rover I owned was in 1984 (the first in 1973).
I always buy my cars at 3 years old (nominally Mercedes-Benz for many years), but i do like the look of the Range Rover and do need good off-road ability for my chosen sport.
How about Autocar runs a 3-4 year old Range Rover for 6 months and report truthfully on its ability to provide reliable everyday transport.
It will be make or break, but if the quality has improved then it would help people like me who just don't trust the build quality.
Only one caveat....buy the car on the open market without disclosing to the dealer that you are Autocar....I wouldn't want LR to specially prepare an example for evaluation with new suspension gearbox etc. to skew results. This needs to be an Autocar test not a LR promotional exercise.
Red Merle
Id like to see that too...
TStag
My Wife's view is ooh no I
The Apprentice
TStag wrote: My Wife's view
The myth that Volvo's are for old geezers is no more true than the one Range Rovers are for pricks or drug dealers.. but then again....
Red Merle
I shall ask my 85 year old,
I'm now going to spend the next few days checking the average age of Volvo drivers!
jamesf1
no contest
Red Merle
Please re read the article
Red Merle
Warranty
I get through 60,000 miles in less than 2 years, meaning that the used Range Rover actually has the better warranty! When I ran Volvo's as company car contract hire cars, the risk was with the contract hire company for the last 15 months or so. Now, as a private purchase, the Volvo becomes the gambler's option!
Pages
Add your comment