2009 Land Rover Range Rover Sport vs. 2005 Volvo S40
To start off, 2009 Land Rover Range Rover Sport is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Volvo S40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Volvo S40 would be higher. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Land Rover Range Rover Sport weights approximately 655 kg more than 2005 Volvo S40.
Because 2009 Land Rover Range Rover Sport is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2005 Volvo S40. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Land Rover Range Rover Sport 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Land Rover Range Rover Sport | 2005 Volvo S40 | |
| Make | Land Rover | Volvo |
| Model | Range Rover Sport | S40 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2005 |
| Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 138 HP |
| Top Speed | 194 km/hour | 205 km/hour |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2055 kg | 1400 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4800 mm | 4470 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1780 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1930 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2670 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 13.1 L/100km | 8.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 19.6 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 22.2 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 88 L | 62 L |
