Among the 22 E-SUV 2012–2016, the XC90 T5 AWD Geartronic ranks 2nd of 22 in Combined consumption (8.9 L/100, behind the Porsche Cayenne Diesel), 20th of 22 in 0–100 km/h (7.4 s, behind the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S).
I · GENERATION 2014 → · LARGE SUV
VolvoICE
XC90 T5 AWD Geartronic
253 hp, 7,4 s 0-100 : among the 22 E-SUV 2012–2016, the XC90 T5 AWD Geartronic ranks 2nd of 22 in Combined consumption, 20th of 22 in 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.
Power
253hp
350 Nm
0 → 100 km/h
7.4s
VMax 225 km/h
Cons.
8.9L
/100 km
Tank
—L
Technical identity card
Full specifications Volvo XC90 T5 AWD Geartronic
Manufacturer data. Consumption and range estimated from the WLTP cycle; performance simulated by the Caralogy physics engine.
Powertrain
| Power | 253 hp |
| Couple | 350 Nm |
| Gearbox | Convertisseur de couple 8 rapports Automatique |
| Transmission | Integrale (AWD) |
Consumption
| Cons. WLTP | 8.9 L/100km |
Performance
| 0 → 100 km/h | 7,4 s |
| VMax | 225 km/h |
Dimensions and environment
| Kerb weight | 2,105 kg |
| Cd | 0.36 |
Caralogy Methodology
Performance (0-100, top speed) simulated by the Caralogy physics engine (SCx, Crr, real torque curves). Motorway consumption values estimated from the manufacturer WLTP cycle.
See full methodology →Manufacturer data · WLTP-estimated consumption · Caralogy-simulated performance
Among the 22 E-SUV, the XC90 T5 AWD Geartronic ranks (top 2 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
E-SUV among the best in segment: 2nd of 22 in Combined consumption (8.9 L/100).
Less suitable for
Frequent urban trips with stop-and-go. At 8,9 L/100 km on the combined cycle, consumption rises in the city without electric assistance. An HEV or PHEV would be more economical for this use profile.
Alternatives to consider
If the priority is Combined consumption, the Porsche Cayenne Diesel (1st with 7.9 L/100) takes the lead. If the priority is 0–100 km/h, the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S (1st with 3.9 s) takes the lead.
Fuel consumption: 8.9 L/100 L/100 (2nd of 22 in Combined consumption)
The XC90 T5 AWD Geartronic consumes 8.9 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the Porsche Cayenne Diesel (7.9 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 XC90 T5 AWD Geartronic stands against E-SUV
Comparison across 22 E-SUV marketed between 2012–2016.
Combined consumption2e / 22
8.9 L/100
Min 13.8 L/100 · Porsche Cayenne TurboMax 7.9 L/100 · Porsche Cayenne Diesel
0–100 km/h20e / 22
7,4 s
Min 7,5 s · Porsche Cayenne (8-speed Tiptronic S)Max 3,9 s · Porsche Cayenne Turbo S
Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)
Cayenne (Manual)294 hp · 0-100 7.6 s
Cayenne (Tiptronic S)294 hp · 0-100 8.0 s
Cayenne (6-speed manual)304 hp · 0-100 7.2 s
Cayenne (6-speed manual)304 hp · 0-100 7.2 s
Cross-energy alternatives
Same needs, different powertrain.
Compare
Popular duels involving the XC90 T5 AWD Geartronic
Frequently asked questions
Volvo XC90 T5 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 Porsche Cayenne Diesel leads in Combined consumption (7.9 L/100 vs 8.9 L/100). The choice depends on your priorities: check the XC90 T5 AWD Geartronic vs Porsche Cayenne Diesel 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.