Among the 25 D-SUV 2015–2019, the XC60 D5 AWD Geartronic ranks 6th of 25 in Combined consumption (5.9 L/100, behind the DS DS7 Crossback BlueHDi 180 EAT8), 19th of 25 in 0–100 km/h (7.2 s, behind the Alfa Romeo Stelvio Quadrifoglio).
II · GENERATION 2017 → · FAMILY SUV
VolvoICE
XC60 D5 AWD Geartronic
238 hp, 7,2 s 0-100 : among the 25 D-SUV 2015–2019, the XC60 D5 AWD Geartronic ranks 6th of 25 in Combined consumption, 19th of 25 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.
Power
238hp
480 Nm
0 → 100 km/h
7.2s
VMax 230 km/h
Cons.
5.9L
/100 km
Tank
—L
Technical identity card
Full specifications Volvo XC60 D5 AWD Geartronic
Manufacturer data and values calibrated by the Caralogy simulation engine.
Powertrain
| Architecture | Unknown |
| Power | 238 hp |
| Couple | 480 Nm |
| Gearbox | Torque Converter 8 rapports Automatic |
| Transmission | AWD |
Consumption
| Cons. WLTP | 5,9 L/100km |
Performance
| 0 → 100 km/h | 7,2 s |
| VMax | 230 km/h |
Dimensions and environment
| Kerb weight | 1,875 kg |
| Cd | 0.34 |
Caralogy Methodology
Motorway and performance values calibrated by the Caralogy physics simulation engine (SCx, Crr, real torque curves).
See full methodology →Manufacturer data · motorway values calibrated by the Caralogy engine
Among the 25 D-SUV, the XC60 D5 AWD Geartronic ranks (top 6 in segment) in fuel consumption. Caralogy simulates its real-world cost: motorway simulation, consumption simulation and performance simulation.
Caralogy Analysis
Tailored to this vehicle?
Caralogy Verdict
Suitable for
Good compromise for regular use without available charging infrastructure. 6th of 25 in Combined consumption (5.9 L/100).
Less suitable for
Some metrics lag behind the segment. Check the rankings above to identify weak points.
Alternatives to consider
If the priority is Combined consumption, the DS DS7 Crossback BlueHDi 180 EAT8 (1st with 5.1 L/100) takes the lead. If the priority is 0–100 km/h, the Alfa Romeo Stelvio Quadrifoglio (1st with 3.8 s) takes the lead.
Fuel consumption: 5.9 L/100 L/100 (6th of 25 in Combined consumption)
The XC60 D5 AWD Geartronic consumes 5.9 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the DS DS7 Crossback BlueHDi 180 EAT8 (5.1 L/100).
Go beyond this analysis
Recalculate everything for your own profile with the three physics simulators that power this page.
Running cost for your profile
Adjust mileage, driving mix and charging type to estimate your annual energy budget.
Launch simulator →Long-distance trip
Simulate any motorway trip: time, charging stops, total cost.
Simulate a trip →Chronos & accélération
0-100, 0-200, courbe de vitesse, positionnement segment.
Voir la performance →Segment positioning
Where the XC60 D5 AWD Geartronic stands against D-SUV
Comparison across 25 D-SUV marketed between 2015–2019.
Combined consumption6e / 25
5.9 L/100
Min 13 L/100 · Jeep Wrangler RubiconMax 5.1 L/100 · DS DS7 Crossback BlueHDi 180 EAT8
0–100 km/h19e / 25
7,2 s
Min 8,6 s · DS DS7 Crossback BlueHDi 180 EAT8Max 3,8 s · Alfa Romeo Stelvio Quadrifoglio
Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)
Macan245 hp · 0-100 6.4 s
X3 xDrive30i252 hp · 0-100 6.3 s
X3 xDrive30i252 hp · 0-100 6.4 s
X4 xDrive30i252 hp · 0-100 6.3 s
Cross-energy alternatives
Same needs, different powertrain.
Model family
The full Volvo XC60 II range
Generation II launched in 2017. Available versions sorted by energy.
Other versions of the II
Compare
Popular duels involving the XC60 D5 AWD Geartronic
Frequently asked questions
Volvo XC60 D5 AWD Geartronic: what you need to know
Well-argued answers to the most asked questions about this model, based on Caralogy data and simulations.
Running costs depend on your profile (mileage, charging type, city/highway mix). Use the Caralogy consumption simulator for a personalised estimate.
The DS DS7 Crossback BlueHDi 180 EAT8 leads in Combined consumption (5.1 L/100 vs 5.9 L/100). The choice depends on your priorities: check the XC60 D5 AWD Geartronic vs DS DS7 Crossback BlueHDi 180 EAT8 duel for a detailed comparison.
Caralogy does not reproduce manufacturer figures: we recalculate every number through physics simulation, starting from SCx, mass and the power curve. This is why our figures at 130 km/h differ from WLTP. Full methodology on the dedicated page.