Subaru Outback vs Volvo XC60: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Subaru Outback burns about $2,100 of fuel annually against $2,300 for the Volvo XC60. That $200 yearly gap compounds to roughly $1,000 over five years and $1,600 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 Volvo XC60 is the stronger commuter at 28 mpg city, while the Subaru Outback pulls ahead on the interstate at 33 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 Subaru Outback is recorded with 3 distinct engine configurations (SIDI, 2.5, 3.6), the Volvo XC60 with 4 (SIDI; Mild Hybrid, SIDI; PHEV, 2.0). Across 26 recorded Subaru Outback 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 Subaru Outback is offered with 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 308 g/mile for the Subaru Outback. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.