2007 Mazda 5 vs. 2010 Volvo XC90
To start off, 2010 Volvo XC90 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2007 Mazda 5. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2007 Mazda 5 would be higher. At 4,400 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Volvo XC90 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Volvo XC90 (311 HP @ 5850 RPM) has 157 more horse power than 2007 Mazda 5. (154 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Volvo XC90 should accelerate faster than 2007 Mazda 5.
Because 2010 Volvo XC90 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2007 Mazda 5. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Volvo XC90 will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2010 Volvo XC90 (440 Nm @ 3900 RPM) has 239 more torque (in Nm) than 2007 Mazda 5. (201 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2010 Volvo XC90 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2007 Mazda 5.
Compare all specifications:
| 2007 Mazda 5 | 2010 Volvo XC90 | |
| Make | Mazda | Volvo |
| Model | 5 | XC90 |
| Year Released | 2007 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Minivan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2260 cc | 4400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 154 HP | 311 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 5850 RPM |
| Torque | 201 Nm | 440 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 3900 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 6 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 4808 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1897 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1640 mm | 1783 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2860 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.1 L/100km | 12.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 11.2 L/100km | 18.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 60 L | 80 L |
