I don't fully understand the implications of the power to weight ratio but would guess the smaller engaged heavier XC90 engine is working much harder. Does this affect the longterm life of a unit?
Power to weight ratio is more useful for indicating of how fast a car might 'feel' on the road. For example, if (for ease of illustration) one car has 100bhp and another has 150bhp, how can they feel equally quick on the road?. The first one weighs a ton, the second weighs 1.5 tons, so power to weight ratio is the same.
How that ties into reliability is a different kettle of fish, but essentially, if an engine is having to work harder more of the time, then, in theory anyway, its long term reliability will be compromosed. Of course there are other variables, such as whether or not the engine is well designed and engineered, but also things like gearing. If the gearing has been properly thought out, the smaller engine shouldn't be put under too much strain, but these days, many cars have ridiculously long gearing to help artificially boost the on paper economy, especially with the now outdated (NEDC) testing regime which i believe took place indoors on a rolling road!. Also, how the car is driven will have an impact, if a car is constantly being thrashed, the reliability can suffer.
But as for your two figures, firstly, power to weight would generally be taken on the cars kerb weight as opposed to gross weight. But, using my figures for the least powerful diesel variant, the XC90 is making 72bhp per ton with the V70 on 71bhp per ton. So from that point of view, the XC90 (in theory) is working no harder than the V70 fully laden.
I'd still say the V70 would be the better choice for long term reliability, but not solely because of the engine.
|