Model Year | 2007 | 2016 | |
Model | Nissan Pathfinder | Volvo V60 | |
Engine | |||
Transmission | |||
Drivetrain | |||
Body | 4dr SUV | 4dr Wagon | |
Difference | |||
Wheelbase | 112.2 in | 109.3 in | 2.9 in |
Length | 187.6 in | 182.5 in | 5.1 in |
Width | 72.8 in | 73.4 in | -0.6 in |
Height | 72.4 in | 58.4 in | 14 in |
Curb Weight | 4373 lb. | 3527 lb. | 846 lb. |
Fuel Capacity | 21.1 gal. | 17.8 gal. | 3.3 gal. |
Headroom, Row 1 | 40.0 in | 38.7 in | 1.3 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 1 | 58.3 in | 57.0 in | 1.3 in |
Hip Room, Row 1 | 55.5 in | 54.9 in | 0.6 in |
Legroom, Row 1 | 42.4 in | 41.9 in | 0.5 in |
Headroom, Row 2 | 39.9 in | 37.4 in | 2.5 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 2 | 58.4 in | 55.2 in | 3.2 in |
Hip Room, Row 2 | 57.6 in | 53.5 in | 4.1 in |
Legroom, Row 2 | 34.2 in | 33.5 in | 0.7 in |
Headroom, Row 3 | 36.7 in | 0.0 in | 36.7 in |
Shoulder Room, Row 3 | 57.1 in | 0.0 in | 57.1 in |
Hip Room, Row 3 | 44.0 in | 0.0 in | 44 in |
Legroom, Row 3 | 28.1 in | 0.0 in | 28.1 in |
Total Legroom | 104.7 in (over 3 rows) | 75.4 in (over 2 rows) | 29.3 in |
Cargo Volume, Minimum | 16.5 ft3 | 15.2 ft3 | 1.3 ft3 |
Cargo Volume, Behind R2 | 49.2 ft3 | 15.2 | 34 ft3 |
Cargo Volume, Maximum | 79.2 ft3 | 43.8 ft3 | 35.4 ft3 |
2007 Nissan Pathfinder Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2008 | 4dr SUV 266-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range |
The third row seating is only good for small children. see full Nissan Pathfinder review |
2006 | 4dr SUV 270-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range |
Rear seat is cramped. I would gladly give up the third row seat, for more room for the rear (2nd row) seats. see full Nissan Pathfinder review |
2006 | 4dr SUV 270-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic RWD |
Rear seating is small for long hauls, and seats WAY too hard see full Nissan Pathfinder review |
2016 Volvo V60 Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Comment | |
2015 | The V60's interior doesn't only look comfortable. Even back in the day Volvo's cars weren't known only for safety. Many people considered their seats the best. Many still do. The V60's front seats are much cushier than those in a German car, but they are also properly supportive. One caveat. Locate the headrest to receive top scores from the crash test dummy and it will jut too far forward for people with especially upright postures--like me. "Active headrests" that move forward if and when the car is rear-ended can sidestep this tradeoff. But the V60's active headrests do not. The BMW's seats are much firmer, but their headrests have a fore-aft adjustment. You also sit significantly lower in the BMW, but its instrument panel isn't as deep (owing to its windshield being more upright), for a more open view forward. Your build and impressions of either car's seats may vary. see full Volvo V60 review |
2016 Volvo V60 Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Comment | |
The Volvo V60's rear seat space also lags the BMW's. At 5-9 I can sit behind myself with a couple inches to spare, but subjectively the limited space seems even tighter than it is. The side window outline that appears sexy from the outside can seem confining from the inside. Large front seat headrests block the view forward. Behind a tall driver even adults of modest size will feel cramped, if they can fit at all. The BMW wagon has a little less headroom but a couple more inches of much-needed knee room. Also, while the Volvo's cabin is a couple inches wider than the BMW's up front, and feels much roomier as a result, this advantage disappears in back. see full Volvo V60 review |
None of our members have yet commented on the seat room and comfort of the 2016 Volvo V60.