Volvo XC90 2002 fuel consumption

Volvo XC90 from 2002 to 2006 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 19% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 21% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 17% higher. Starting from 2002 Volvo XC90 average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was significantly higher than average, at 2003 it was similar to average, at 2004 difference became less than industry average and finally at 2006 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became similar to average. For more details, see the table below.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

Year	Gasoline cars		Diesel cars
Year	All carmakers	Volvo XC90	All carmakers	Volvo XC90
2002	+6%	+22%	+7%	insignificant
Show all years
2003	+6%	+7%	+8%	+4%
2004	+7%	+7%	+9%	+4%
2005	+8%	+6%	+10%	+7%
2006	+9%	+8%	+11%	+11%

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Volvo XC90.

2002 - 2006

Volvo XC90 2002 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines	19.1 MPG 12.3 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines	17.4 MPG 13.5 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *	+6%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines	27.2 MPG 8.7 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines	25.2 MPG 9.3 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *	+7%

Volvo XC90 2002 specs Volvo XC90 2002 owner reviews Volvo XC90 service info and schedule

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Volvo XC90 2002 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.8 liters per 100 km or 8% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Volvo XC90 with automatic transmission consumes around 0.6 litres per 100 km or 6% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars from other manufacturers, the Volvo XC90 fuel economy is one of the worst. The best fuel economy in its class of all the modifications has one with 2.4 diesel engine and manual transmission (Volvo XC90 2003 2.4 D5 163 HP 4x4).

The table below shows the real and claimed fuel consumption and the differences for specific versions.

Modification	Claimed consumption	Real consumption
2.4 liter diesel engine
Volvo XC90 2002 2.4 D5 163 HP 4x4 automatic	25.8 MPG 9.1 l/100km	25.3 MPG 9.3 l/100km+2%
Volvo XC90 2002 2.4 D3 163 HP automatic	28.7 MPG 8.2 l/100km
Volvo XC90 2003 2.4 D5 163 HP 4x4 manual	28.3 MPG 8.3 l/100km	27.0 MPG 8.7 l/100km+5%
Volvo XC90 2005 2.4 D 163 HP 4x4 automatic	26.1 MPG 9.0 l/100km	25.0 MPG 9.4 l/100km+4%
Volvo XC90 2005 2.4 D5 185 HP 4x4 manual	28.3 MPG 8.3 l/100km	25.0 MPG 9.4 l/100km+13%
Volvo XC90 2005 2.4 D5 185 HP 4x4 automatic	26.1 MPG 9.0 l/100km	24.0 MPG 9.8 l/100km+9%
2.5 liter petrol engine
Volvo XC90 2003 2.5 T 210 HP 4x4 manual	21.4 MPG 11.0 l/100km
Volvo XC90 2003 2.5 T 210 HP 4x4 automatic	19.6 MPG 12.0 l/100km	19.4 MPG 12.1 l/100km+1%
Volvo XC90 2003 2.5 T 210 HP 4x4 automatic	19.6 MPG 12.0 l/100km	19.8 MPG 11.9 l/100km-1%
2.8 liter petrol engine
Volvo XC90 2002 2.8 24V 272 HP 4x4 automatic	18.2 MPG 12.9 l/100km
2.9 liter petrol engine
Volvo XC90 2002 2.9 T6 272 HP 4x4 automatic	18.1 MPG 13.0 l/100km	14.8 MPG 15.9 l/100km+22%
3.2 liter petrol engine
Volvo XC90 2006 3.2 243 HP 4x4 automatic	20.5 MPG 11.5 l/100km
4.4 liter petrol engine
Volvo XC90 2005 4.4 V8 315 HP 4x4 automatic	16.8 MPG 14.0 l/100km	16.6 MPG 14.2 l/100km+1%

Do you own a Volvo XC90? Please share your fuel economy!

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.