Nissan Murano vs Volvo V90: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Nissan Murano burns about $2,100 of fuel annually against $2,800 for the Volvo V90. That $700 yearly gap compounds to roughly $3,500 over five years and $5,600 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City versus highway split: the Nissan Murano is the stronger commuter at 27 mpg city, while the Volvo V90 pulls ahead on the interstate at 35 mpg highway. If most of your driving is stop-and-go traffic the city figure is the one to weigh; for long-distance highway mileage the reverse is true, and the two vehicles effectively swap places depending on how you drive.

Powertrain choice: the Nissan Murano is recorded with 3 distinct engine configurations (SIDI & PFI, 3.5, 2.5), the Volvo V90 with 2 (SIDI; Mild Hybrid, SIDI). Across 25 recorded Nissan Murano configurations and 20 for the Volvo V90, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the Nissan Murano is offered with All-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive, the Volvo V90 with All-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Midsize Station Wagons and Midsize Station Wagons respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Nissan Murano emits 310 g/mile of CO2 versus 322 g/mile for the Volvo V90. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.