Nissan Rogue vs Volvo XC60: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Nissan Rogue burns about $1,800 of fuel annually against $2,300 for the Volvo XC60. That $500 yearly gap compounds to roughly $2,500 over five years and $4,000 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 and highway economy: the Nissan Rogue leads in both cycles — 33 mpg city and 37 mpg highway against 28 and 31 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the Nissan Rogue is recorded with 4 distinct engine configurations (SIDI, SIDI; Stop-Start, 2.5), the Volvo XC60 with 4 (SIDI; Mild Hybrid, SIDI; PHEV, 2.0). Across 56 recorded Nissan Rogue configurations and 44 for the Volvo XC60, 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 Rogue is offered with Front-Wheel Drive, All-Wheel Drive, the Volvo XC60 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 Small Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD and Small Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Volvo XC60 emits 122 g/mile of CO2 versus 261 g/mile for the Nissan Rogue. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.