Compare Volvo V90 vs Volvo V70 III facelift vs Toyota Auris 2 Touring Sports facelift
Variants
D3
D3 Euro6d
D3 AT
D3 Euro6d AT
D3 AWD AT
D3 Euro6d AWD AT
D4 Euro6d
D4
D4 AT
D4 Euro6d AT
D4 AWD AT
D4 Euro6d AWD AT
D5 Euro6d AWD AT
D5 AWD AT
T4 AT
T4 Euro6d AT
T5 250PS AT
T5 250PS Euro6d AT
T5 254PS AT
T6 310PS AWD AT
T6 Euro6d 310PS AWD AT
T6 320PS AWD AT
T8 391PS AWD Hybrid
T8 407PS AWD Hybrid
D2
D2 AT
D3
D3 AT
D4 163PS
D4 163PS AT
D4 163PS AT
D4 163PS AWD AT
D4 181PS
D4 181PS AT
D4 181PS AWD AT
D5
D5 AT
D5 AWD AT
T4 180PS
T4 180PS AT
T4F
T4F AT
T5 245PS AT
T6 AWD AT
1.2T CVT
1.2T MT
1.33 Dual VVT-i MT
1.4 D-4D MT
1.6 D-4D MT
1.8 Hybrid
Capacity
Cargo Capacity
555 L / 19.6 cu-ft ~ 1580 L / 55.8 cu-ft
530 L / 18.7 cu-ft
Fuel Capacity
70.0 L / 18.5 gal
Passengers
5
5
5
Chassis
Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Brakes | Rear
Disc
Disc
Disc
Power Steering
Electric Steering
Electric Steering
Suspension | Front
Double-wishbone
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
Suspension | Rear
Multi-link
Multi-link
Double-wishbone
Tire Size
205/55 R16
Turning Circle
11.7 m / 38.4 ft
11.0 m / 36.1 ft
Water Fording
250 mm / 9.8 in
Construction
Body Style
5-door Station Wagon
Dimensions
Ground Clearance
153 mm / 6.0 in
151 mm / 5.9 in
Size | Height
1475 mm / 58.1 in
1547 mm / 60.9 in
1485 mm / 58.5 in
Size | Length
4936 mm / 194.3 in
4814 mm / 189.5 in
4595 mm / 180.9 in
Size | Width
1907 mm / 75.1 in
1760 mm / 69.3 in
Track Width | Front
1588.0 mm / 62.5 in
Track Width | Rear
1586.0 mm / 62.4 in
Wheel Size
6.5J x 16
Wheelbase
2941 mm / 115.8 in
2816 mm / 110.9 in
2600 mm / 102.4 in
Performance
Braking | 100 km/h - 0
35.0 m / 114.8 ft
Coefficient Of Drag
0.30 ~ 0.33
Powertrain
Drivetrain Layout
Front-engine (transverse), Front-wheel drive
Emission Standard
Euro 6 W
Engine | Bore
82.0 mm / 3.2 in
Engine | Displacement
2.0 L / 120.2 cu-in / 1969.0 cc
Engine | Stroke
93.2 mm / 3.7 in
Transmission | Gears
6-speed
Production
Availability
2015 ~ 2018
Reviews
Neofiliac score
67%
60%
30%
Pros
- Double-wishbone + multi-link suspension setup
- Exceptionally elegant
- Good engine lineup remained available
- Cleaner, more imposing design
- Very low fuel consumption
- Superb reliability
- More modern design
Cons
- Only available with small engines
- Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
- Horrible 0-100kph time
- Can't even reach 200km/h
- Miserably low engine output
- Only available with small engines
- Poor handling
Remove
Remove
Remove
Add up to 4 products to the comparison using the search bar above
Information on this page is provided on an as-is basis. No warranty on accuracy is implied. This page may contain affiliate links to third-party merchants such as Amazon and eBay. If you make a purchase using the supplied link, we may receive a commission. Neofiliac places the utmost respect for your privacy. We use no cookie whatsoever beyond that needed for the proper functioning of the website.