HomeArticlesProductsKeywordsCompanies

Compare Volvo V60 II vs Volkswagen Passat B8 Variant vs Volkswagen Golf 7 Variant

Variants
B3
B4
B5
B5 AWD
B6 AWD
D3
D3 AWD
D3 MT
D4
D4 AWD
D4 MT
Polestar
T4
T5
T5 AWD
T6 AWD
T6 TwEn AWD
T8 TwEn AWD
1.4 TSI
1.4 TSI ACT
1.4 TSI ACT 4MOTION
1.4 TSI ACT DSG
1.4 TSI DSG
1.5 TSI
1.5 TSI DSG
1.6 TDI
1.6 TDI DSG
1.8 TSI DSG
2.0 BiTDI 4MOTION DSG
2.0 TDI 150PS
2.0 TDI 150PS 4MOTION
2.0 TDI 150PS DSG
2.0 TDI 190PS
2.0 TDI 190PS DSG
2.0 TDI 190PS DSG 4MOTION
2.0 TSI 220PS DSG
2.0 TSI 272PS 4MOTION DSG
2.0 TSI 280PS 4MOTION DSG
GTE
1.0 TSI BlueMotion
1.0 TSI BlueMotion DSG
1.2 TSI 105PS
1.2 TSI 105PS DSG
1.2 TSI 110PS
1.2 TSI 110PS DSG
1.2 TSI 85PS
1.4 TGI BlueMotion
1.4 TGI BlueMotion DSG
1.4 TSI 122PS
1.4 TSI 122PS DSG
1.4 TSI 125PS
1.4 TSI 125PS DSG
1.4 TSI 140PS
1.4 TSI 140PS DSG
1.4 TSI 150PS
1.4 TSI 150PS DSG
1.6 TDI 105PS
1.6 TDI 105PS 4MOTION
1.6 TDI 105PS DSG
1.6 TDI 110PS
1.6 TDI 110PS 4MOTION
1.6 TDI 110PS BlueMotion
1.6 TDI 110PS DSG
1.6 TDI 90PS
2.0 TDI
2.0 TDI 4MOTION
2.0 TDI DSG
GTD
GTD DSG

Capacity

Coolant Capacity
8.9 L / 9.4 qt
Fuel Capacity
50.0 L / 13.2 gal
Passengers
5
5
5

Chassis

Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Ventilated discs
Brakes | Rear
Disc
Disc
Power Steering
Electric Steering
Electric Steering
Electric Steering
Suspension | Front
Double-wishbone
Multi-link
MacPherson strut
Suspension | Rear
Multi-link
Independent, spring
Multi-link
Turning Circle
11.7 m / 38.4 ft
10.9 m / 35.8 ft

Construction

Battery | Capacity
9.9 kWh (gross)
Body Style
5-door Station Wagon

Dimensions

Ground Clearance
145 mm / 5.7 in
Size | Length
4761 mm / 187.4 in
4767 mm / 187.7 in
Size | Width
1850 mm / 72.8 in | 2040 mm / 80.3 in (mirror unfolded) | 1916 mm / 75.4 in (mirror folded)
Track Width | Front
1593.0 mm / 62.7 in
Track Width | Rear
1593.0 mm / 62.7 in
Wheelbase
2872 mm / 113.1 in

Performance

Braking | 100 km/h - 0
35.0 m / 114.8 ft
Coefficient Of Drag
0.29

Powertrain

Emission Standard
Euro 6d
Euro 6
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

Reviews

Neofiliac score
62%
46%
22%
Pros
  • Good styling
  • Good 0.28 drag coefficient
  • Low fuel consumption
  • Good towing capacity
  • Good fuel economy rating
  • Imposing design
  • Down to very low 3.5L/100km fuel consumption
Cons
  • Only available with small engines
  • Only available with small engines
  • PHEV nonsense
  • MacPherson front suspension
  • Loads of gadgetry
  • No powerful engine options
  • Only available with small engines
  • Somewhat ugly

Price

Offers (incl. referral links)
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.