View Full Version : 2016 XC90 Fuel Economy numbers are on the Volvo site today



Pages : [1] 2

Paradox
03-27-2015, 12:02 PM
And, the numbers are:

20 mpg City
25 mpg Highway


Highway came in lower than I had expected. City is 1 mpg higher than I expected. Still shocked at the highway, I was really thinking 27 would be a minimum but they do not deter me.

http://i.imgur.com/geOuUMj.jpg

turbomama
03-27-2015, 12:08 PM
Are these best in class numbers? Not being sarcastic - I really don't know! Have to admit disappointment here. I think I held on to the original buzz I heard when first talks of new XC90. The buzz was in the 30's. A little bummed. :(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

newtovolvo86
03-27-2015, 12:19 PM
I was hoping for more, but for me it is still an improvement over my current vehicle. To put it in perspective, I drive a 2014 Infiniti Q50 which gets 20/29 and this is a sedan, but requires premium gas. I will be happy with the 20/25 and being able to use regular unleaded.

Paradox
03-27-2015, 12:25 PM
I was hoping for more, but for me it is still an improvement over my current vehicle. To put it in perspective, I drive a 2014 Infiniti Q50 which gets 20/29 and this is a sedan, but requires premium gas. I will be happy with the 20/25 and being able to use regular unleaded.


Is it regular though in the T6? I've been under the understanding the Drive-E T5 recommends regular and the Drive-E T6 recommends Premium.

newtovolvo86
03-27-2015, 12:26 PM
For comparison:
2015 BMW X5 (18/27)
2015 Audi Q7 (16/22)
2015 Acura MDX (20/28)
2015 Lexus GX (15/20)

Paradox
03-27-2015, 12:27 PM
2015 Infiniti QX60 AWD (19/25)
2015 Toyota Highlander AWD (18/24)

Edit: The EPA has the 2016 MDX AWD numbers above and they are lower than the 2015 you posted above.

2016 Acura MDX AWD (18/26)

newtovolvo86
03-27-2015, 12:30 PM
Per the Owner's Manual:
Octane rating
Volvo recommends premium fuel for best performance, but using 87 octane or above will not affect engine reliability.

It is recommended, not required, unlike many luxury SUVs and Cars

AtlantaVolvoFan
03-27-2015, 12:33 PM
That's interesting. I too thought the T6 required premium fuel. I wonder what decrease in performance you would experience with 87 octane?

I am a bit disappointed in the 25mpg highway rating. I expected more out of a 4-cylinder. But it would not change my mind in getting the new XC90.

Paradox
03-27-2015, 12:47 PM
Per the Owner's Manual:
Octane rating
Volvo recommends premium fuel for best performance, but using 87 octane or above will not affect engine reliability.

It is recommended, not required, unlike many luxury SUVs and Cars

Indeed, the manual on the Volvo app says 87 unless equipped with the high performance 4 cylinder engines (B4204T9 and B4204T10) which require premium fuel. I wonder which engines they are referencing with those model numbers that require premium.

http://i.imgur.com/YDENwsT.jpg

turbomama
03-27-2015, 12:53 PM
Indeed, the manual on the Volvo app says 87 unless equipped with the high performance 4 cylinder engines (B4204T9 and B4204T10) which require premium fuel. I wonder which engines they are referencing with those model numbers that require premium.

http://i.imgur.com/YDENwsT.jpg

That's pretty important here in cost analysis. Wonder how we find out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paradox
03-27-2015, 01:06 PM
That's pretty important here in cost analysis. Wonder how we find out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yannis (GrecianVolvo) said this in the past about the Drive-E T6 engine, when talking about it in the XC60:




As noted in previous posts, the T6 will require premium fuel. That does not mean using regular fuel will damage the engine. However, if you want to get the posted fuel mileage and performance, you will need to use 91-octane grade or higher. That is not a requirement for the T5 version.


Link to the post:https://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?206801-Great-Interest-in-2015-Volvo-XC60-FWD-with-new-2Liter-302HP-Drive-E-engine&p=2278015&viewfull=1#post2278015

Those engine numbers (B4204T9 and B4204T10) got discussed in there as well although I didn't see any mention to what exactly they refer to.


More: https://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?206308-Octane-Requirements&p=2269790&viewfull=1#post2269790

Lol, this whole topic of fuel rquirement versus those engine numbers has come up before because of the T6 Drive-E in the XC60: https://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?209014-XC60-T5-Drive-E-or-T6-Drive-E&p=2312054&viewfull=1#post2312054

VolvoFaRmeR
03-27-2015, 03:56 PM
While solid numbers, it seems to not live up to the "hype" as we've seen over and over "class-leading". I thought it was going to be better than the X5 diesel as well, but it's far from it. Still, at this price level a few MPG isn't going to probably be a deciding factor. 3rd row seat space probably is the most important, and it clearly is amazing in this aspect. I wonder if the T5 version we will get later will be significantly better, or in 2wd variants? Considering it's better than the XC60 but is much larger does show the vast improvements being made.

After seeing 2 in person and the Chicago Auto Show it still doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for this vehicle....it's still very impressive. Can't wait for the SPA sedans so I can actually get into one myself.

goVolvo
03-27-2015, 05:46 PM
20MPG City is very good number for such a big car. It is so close to highway mpg. So auto stop engine on red helped a lot?

Adrian-C30R
03-27-2015, 09:43 PM
I was hoping for more, but for me it is still an improvement over my current vehicle. To put it in perspective, I drive a 2014 Infiniti Q50 which gets 20/29 and this is a sedan, but requires premium gas. I will be happy with the 20/25 and being able to use regular unleaded.

The Drive-E T6 is recommended for premium gas as well.

Adrian-C30R
03-27-2015, 09:47 PM
It's actually better MPG than the P80 models were getting. It's not miraculous, but that's what the T8 is for.

Shopaholic
03-28-2015, 12:43 AM
The MPG is quit disappointing with all the hype about using a fancy 4 cylinder with weight savings etc., and the 2015 BMW X5 that is close to 200 lb heavier with a sweet sounding turbo 6 is rated at 19/27 and a 0-60 time of 6.1 to boot !

VolvoFaRmeR
03-28-2015, 01:31 AM
The MPG is quit disappointing with all the hype about using a fancy 4 cylinder with weight savings etc., and the 2015 BMW X5 that is close to 200 lb heavier with a sweet sounding turbo 6 is rated at 19/27 and a 0-60 time of 6.1 to boot !

....which is no quicker than the Volvo and probably costs $10-20,000 more when similar equipmed.....and has NO third row seat that could ever be used by an adult. The X5 may be a competitor, but when it comes to seating 7 it's laughable. Not sure too many people will cross shop these two for any reason. REAL WORLD results will be the deciding factor.

DCPattie
03-28-2015, 06:56 AM
Geez, it seems like just paring the old 3.0L I-6 (T6) with the new eight-speed transmission would get you close. My 2012 T6 XC70 gets 17/23. I was expecting more with the all-new drivetrain! The overall weight seems to be in check at ~4400 lbs but still, this is what you get when you pair a small motor in large car. Ford is seeing the same thing with the new Mustang with the 2.3L ecoboost engine - weaker than expected EPA numbers (even worse in real driving).

GolfEsq
03-28-2015, 07:29 AM
....which is no quicker than the Volvo and probably costs $10-20,000 more when similar equipmed.....and has NO third row seat that could ever be used by an adult. The X5 may be a competitor, but when it comes to seating 7 it's laughable. Not sure too many people will cross shop these two for any reason. REAL WORLD results will be the deciding factor.

Both cars have their drawbacks and strong points. Shopaholic's point is that the X5 is heavier, has a way better sounding engine and gets comparable gas mileage. I drove an XC60 (with T6 Drive-E) the other day again. It's quiet, but not at all refined sounding. If there is no ostensible MPG benefit to the 4cyl that Volvo used, they should have just gone with a (better sounding) 6cyl.

VolvoFaRmeR
03-28-2015, 07:47 AM
Except that the 4 cylinder BMW is always called our for sounding like a truck engine, I'd say Volvo has one of the best sounding 4 cylinders in this segment. And I think you will find the engine does have a HUGE increase in fuel economy over a six. Take the 3.2 in the old XC90 ad 16/25....that's a 20% improvement in city fuel economy on a car this is now larger, matches the highway economy AND makes 20% more power while doing it. 20% more power and 20% better fuel economy indeed sounds like huge improvement to me. Consider a XC60 T6 6 cylinder gets 15% worse economy in the city and seats 2 less people while having the same power. Sure it's not what we wished it was, but lets not overlook the marked improvement for what it is. We'll see what Audi's new Q7 is rated out and then you can compare.

BrianV
03-28-2015, 08:12 AM
Ugh, this is definitely a bit disappointing, but I had somewhat expected it given the FWD-only XC60 with this engine gets 22/30. Adding AWD eats 1-2 mpg, then the added weight, size, height takes its toll as well.

We need a new car due to a growing family, the XC90 was high on our list, but I have to seriously consider the X5 35i which gets an impressive 27 mpg and is more dynamic. I understand Volvo really focused on these new green engines as they had significant issues being efficient. Unfortunately, only offering a 4-cylinder choice in such a large SUV and only getting 25 mpg will ultimately hurt them I fear.

finnvolvo
03-28-2015, 08:44 AM
If these numbers are true, HUGE disappointment! After all the hype, class leading mpg etc, this? These numbers makes me think that what was the Volvo management smoking when they decided to put a 4-cylinder engine in a heavy SUV? I bet BMW and Audi are laughing right now.

VolvoFarmer, to compare the mpg of the new XC90 to the old 3.2 liter XC90 and say "look, what an improvement!" is a bit laughable. I understand you're trying to put a positive spin on this, but come on. This engine was supposed to give superior mpg against the competition and redefine Volvo's future. With these mpg numbers, the XC90 does not stand out from the crowd and actually stands behind some of it's competitors.

Perhaps you can tell I am disappointed. I truly hope these numbers are not true. I was so hopeful that Volvo would have come out with an engine formula that would help redefine the future for car engines and save the Volvo brand. Now I have my doubts. End of rant, time for my morning coffee.

finnvolvo
03-28-2015, 09:09 AM
It's not miraculous, but that's what the T8 is for.

I think the highway numbers for T8 will actually be worse than T6 because of the battery weight.

Paradox
03-28-2015, 09:15 AM
I truly hope these numbers are not true.

Unless you mean you hope real world numbers are somehow better, I pulled them straight off Volvo's website.

I think their reason for going small engine/alot of power through twin charging has more to do with emissions than superior MPG, but I could be totally off. I wasn't expecting this engine to beat an X5 diesel like someone else was but I also thought mated to the 8 speed transmission it would have fared a tad bit better on the highway, at 27 mpg. Maybe those with the air suspension can get 26 highway if they set it to lower at highway speeds, but even that's just 1 mpg and honestly who cares, well I don't.

Overall, they pretty much matched similar size and weight vehicles (like an Infiniti QX 60 AWD that gets 19 city, 26 highway but with a 3.5L V6 making 50 less horsepower) while probably getting better emissions which makes Volvo content.

GolfEsq
03-28-2015, 09:43 AM
Unless you mean you hope real world numbers are somehow better, I pulled them straight off Volvo's website.

I think their reason for going small engine/alot of power through twin charging has more to do with emissions than superior MPG, but I could be totally off. I wasn't expecting this engine to beat an X5 diesel like someone else was but I also thought mated to the 8 speed transmission it would have fared a tad bit better on the highway, at 27 mpg. Maybe those with the air suspension can get 26 highway if they set it to lower at highway speeds, but even that's just 1 mpg and honestly who cares, well I don't.

Overall, they pretty much matched similar size and weight vehicles (like an Infiniti QX 60 AWD that gets 19 city, 26 highway but with a 3.5L V6 making 50 less horsepower) while probably getting better emissions which makes Volvo content.

Like someone else said, the real test will be what the Q7's fuel economy numbers are. That 3.0 supercharged motor, like the BMW I6 turbo, is one sweet engine. Better than the Volvo T6 Drive E motors that I've driven by quite a ways. Yeah, the XC90 looks better but I suspect the Q7 may drive better. Also, the Infiniti QX60 is due for a refresh in 2016 or 2017. Curious to see what, if any, changes they make to the drivetrain. That 3.5/CVT combo is awful. Passable (barely), in a 35K pathfinder, but totally unacceptable for a 55 to 60K lux crossover.

Paradox
03-28-2015, 09:50 AM
Like someone else said, the real test will be what the Q7's fuel economy numbers are. That 3.0 supercharged motor, like the BMW I6 turbo, is one sweet engine. Better than the Volvo T6 Drive E motors that I've driven by quite a ways. Yeah, the XC90 looks better but I suspect the Q7 may drive better. Also, the Infiniti QX60 is due for a refresh in 2016 or 2017. Curious to see what, if any, changes they make to the drivetrain. That 3.5/CVT combo is awful. Passable (barely), in a 35K pathfinder, but totally unacceptable for a 55 to 60K lux crossover.

Agree, it's awful in the qx60 but price you mention is loaded and sticker. They sell for MUCH less if you shop around. I got a fully loaded hybrid AWD qx60 stickered at $61k for $53k and it was not a left over, but rather 3 months after the 14's were released. The refresh may just be a minor cosmetic refresh, who knows but they definitely should consider dumping that cvt they are using.

Agree also, while the XC90 certainly looks better to most, the Q7s numbers and driving reviews may push people to it, just have to wait and see now.

pattyweb
03-28-2015, 10:32 AM
If the numbers are correct, then they are disappointing. They're not bad, but the hype is over blown and I don't see the promises being delivered. Those of us not blinded by love for Volvo saw this coming. And there's still the issue of what will the real world numbers be. A lot of DriveE 60s owners are not achieving epa numbers. Other brands have also run into this issue with turbo 4 cylinder engines and have had to deal with unhappy customers not achieving mpg ratings. The less cylinders and with turbos etc, the harder to achieve rated mpgs. Throw in the weight of an SUV, and it's going to be that much harder. If you have a heavy foot, then you are going to burn even more gas than if you'd just gotten more cylinders.

With more traditional engine design and more cylinders, it was easier to do better than the epa ratings. Throw in cylinder deactivation which I believe in and it's even that much better.

I wonder how much of the city 20 mpgs is coming from start/stop? And what is the rating if people turn that off?

And what is the epa rating on regular NON-premium fuel?

For me, I would glady give up a few mpg in exchange for a less complicated engine (no turbos or superchargers), 2 more cylinders, regular gas, and a better smoother engine sound that stays nice even when being pressed hard.

I've always wished Volvo would have offered a 5 or 6 cyl DriveE.

What will be interesting is what numbers does Audi achieve, and what percentage of buyers opt for a 4cyl vs 6cyl Q7 since Audi is offering that option.

rfkuehn
03-28-2015, 10:44 AM
City #'s are just fine, but agree highway is a bit disappointing, especially considering the 8-speed. Could the Aerodynamics By Geoff be a factor? (Top Gear viewers will understand.) Does the 4-cyl cruise at borderline-boost at highway speed just to keep moving the box through the air?

Makes me wonder if T5 will be any better. If the T5's turbo is tuned for low end (where the T6's supercharger operates), will the T5 be able to get the XC90 up a hill against a stiff breeze?

I think the narrow 4-cyl strategy was for better leverage of powertrain investments & margin, but the XC90 may be pushing it given weight & size. Another reason the next-gen 60-series may truly be the real deal.

Calhon
03-28-2015, 11:16 AM
Ugh, this is definitely a bit disappointing, but I had somewhat expected it given the FWD-only XC60 with this engine gets 22/30. Adding AWD eats 1-2 mpg, then the added weight, size, height takes its toll as well.

We need a new car due to a growing family, the XC90 was high on our list, but I have to seriously consider the X5 35i which gets an impressive 27 mpg and is more dynamic. I understand Volvo really focused on these new green engines as they had significant issues being efficient. Unfortunately, only offering a 4-cylinder choice in such a large SUV and only getting 25 mpg will ultimately hurt them I fear.

I had expected 20/27/23 mpg on the basis of the XC60 T6 comparison - the typical Volvo 1 mpg penalty for AWD and another 1-2 mpg for other factors. The city number is on target but the highway number is both disappointing and a bit strange. It's unusually close to the city number, 5 mpg down from the XC60, and less than that of some 6-cyl competitors.

Comparison:

Gas
Volvo XC90....................20/25/22
Acura MDX....................18/27/21
Audi Q7........................16/22/18
BMW X5 x35i.................18/27/21
Infiniti QX60..................19/26/22
MB ML350.....................17/22/19
Porsche Cayenne 6-cyl ...19/24/21

Diesel
Audi Q7 diesel...............19/28/22
BMW X5 x35d................24/31/27
MB ML250.....................22/29/25
Porsche Cayenne...........20/29/23

rfkuehn
03-28-2015, 11:28 AM
I had expected 20/27/23 mpg on the basis of the XC60 T6 comparison - the typical Volvo 1 mpg penalty for AWD and another 1-2 mpg for other factors. The city number is on target but the highway number is both disappointing and a bit strange. It's unusually close to the city number, 5 mpg down from the XC60, and less than that of some 6-cyl competitors.

Comparison:

Gas
Volvo XC90....................20/25/22
Acura MDX....................18/27/21
Audi Q7........................16/22/18
BMW X5 x35i.................18/27/21
Infiniti QX60..................19/26/22
MB ML350.....................17/22/19
Porsche Cayenne 6-cyl ...19/24/21

Diesel
Audi Q7 diesel...............19/28/22
BMW X5 x35d................24/31/27
MB ML250.....................22/29/25
Porsche Cayenne...........20/29/23

This is a crude/unfair comparison, but the 5 mpg city-to-highway bump is at the low end of the range you've cited, here's the others in your order: 9, 6, 9, 7, 5, 5 (gas), 9, 7, 7, 9 (diesel).

I figured they'd tune to certify 20 city, but expected 20/27/23. Do we know the combined rating? 20/25/22 perhaps?

Paradox
03-28-2015, 11:32 AM
This is a crude/unfair comparison, but the 5 mpg city-to-highway bump is at the low end of the range you've cited, here's the others in your order: 9, 6, 9, 7, 5, 5 (gas), 9, 7, 7, 9 (diesel).

I figured they'd tune to certify 20 city, but expected 20/27/23. Do we know the combined rating? 20/25/22 perhaps?

I think combined is going to be 22. They use 45% and 55% but I forget if it is 55% highway 45% city or the other way around.

Edit, they use 55% city 45% higheay for the combined rating. http://epa.gov/fueleconomy/documents/420f14015.pdf

goVolvo
03-28-2015, 11:33 AM
Real mpg, eg, how many miles it runs with one tank of gas in real life, varies very much for several reasons:
- average speed for city drive. 10mph and 20mph makes a lot difference.
- uphills, affects mpg a lot, on both city road and highway.
- driving habit. Slow cruiser certainly gets much better number than rush and stop.
- engine efficiency, car weight and aero shape, eg, likely can be indicated by EPA numbers.

The first 3 reasons create a lot difference. For similar car weight, be it 4cyl turbo or 6cyl or 6cyl turbo, it does not surprise me if same car is 27mpg under one person's foot and 24 mpg by someone else.

I know people love comparisons and numbers are excellent things to compare. But bear in mind, if you really are so emotionally attached to mpg of your car, a smaller car or hybrid is your better choice.

This XC90 number is in line with my expectation. Only thing is how it compares to XC60 drive E on highway. One can really drive both cars and get the real milage.

newtovolvo86
03-28-2015, 11:55 AM
I know people love comparisons and numbers are excellent things to compare. But bear in mind, if you really are so emotionally attached to mpg of your car, a smaller car or hybrid is your better choice.



This. If you wanted a higher mpg, wait for the T8. I personally am tied to the styling and technology inside the vehicle. Any mpg would be a bonus.

volvocu
03-28-2015, 11:56 AM
Yannis had previously stated that the T6 would not only better X5 35i but also X5 3.0D if I recall correctly, so whats the deal with those numbers?

Calhon
03-28-2015, 12:01 PM
This is a crude/unfair comparison, but the 5 mpg city-to-highway bump is at the low end of the range you've cited, here's the others in your order: 9, 6, 9, 7, 5, 5 (gas), 9, 7, 7, 9 (diesel).


It's the lowest percentage spread between the city and highway numbers.

goVolvo
03-28-2015, 12:14 PM
If you drive a BMW 35i, and see XC90 2mpg better in city, will you feel so disappointed? And audi Q7 drivers must be returning their Q7 now. lol, and so are ML350 drivers. For similar level cars, numbers are really not that an important reason you buy a car.

Paradox
03-28-2015, 12:25 PM
Yannis had previously stated that the T6 would not only better X5 35i but also X5 3.0D if I recall correctly, so whats the deal with those numbers?

I think this is the post people are talking about (https://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?220879-2016-XC90-vs-BMW-X5-Visual-Comparison&p=2426024&viewfull=1#post2426024) concerning this. It looks like the XC90 in the end came out either lower, even with or above city MPG for the diesel's mentioned, the XC90 highway MPG came in lower than all the ones mentioned and the XC90 was either on par with or lower than the combined MPG numbers for all 6 of the diesels mentioned in that post.

goVolvo
03-28-2015, 12:36 PM
So Yannis is not always right. Good, back to the real world where nobody can be always right . :)

T5_awd
03-28-2015, 12:51 PM
who cares about 1-2 MPG??

For example in Swede, my T8 costs about $120K. I'm going to loose easily $20K the first 10 meters I drive. So I don't care if I have to pay 10 dollars (but in SEK) extra every month in fuel! :p

Calhon
03-28-2015, 01:52 PM
Yannis had previously stated that the T6 would not only better X5 35i but also X5 3.0D if I recall correctly, so whats the deal with those numbers?

It was clear to me beforehand that Yannis was almost certainly wrong w.r.t the X5 diesel because the X5 has better fuel economy that the smaller, FWD XC60 T6 Drive-E - 24/31/27 versus 22/30/25.

Brutus99
03-28-2015, 02:03 PM
So what is the approx. fuel economy on the T8 supposed to be??

goVolvo
03-28-2015, 02:18 PM
So what is the approx. fuel economy on the T8 supposed to be??

Depends on you recharge the battery or not. If no recharge at night, T8 is 500lbs more and lower mpg supposedly. But there is braking regeneration that saves some on city road. On highway speed air drag is more obvious and there is no traditional AWD gears. I'd guess it is not as much lower mpg as we think compared to T6. Maybe 1mpg less if you ask me to guess.

If you drives lot local, guaranteed you will recharge it at night though. That's the whole reason to drive a plug-in hybrid anyway.

ucla95
03-28-2015, 02:26 PM
It's the lowest percentage spread between the city and highway numbers.

I would guess that the reason for this would have to circle around the aerodynamics which are more important for highway mpg's.

GrecianVolvo
03-28-2015, 03:08 PM
Not sure what EPA has changed but the same (diesel) engine for the X5, a year or so ago, had a combined mileage rating of 22.
Still, XC90's combined 22 MPG is best in class among gasoline-powered 7-passenger SUVs (in its segment).

VolvoFaRmeR
03-28-2015, 04:31 PM
I get the disappointment in the numbers from the XC90 rating... But all this comparison of X5 or Cayanne or ML to the XC90 baffles me......aren't we comparing 7 seat SUV?!?!? Isn't that the primary purpose people buy an XC90 is that it seats 7? So why would I be concerned about the competition that get 1 or 2 mpg better.....but can't seat the people or hold the cargo I have? I would buy and XC60 if I wanted to carry only 5 people. These comparisons see rather academic to me, as they don't really play out a large % of the time in the actual sales of a 5 seat vs 7 seat. That's the beauty of the XC90...is has few piers.

Sure the other brands have some great SUVs, some with great power trains and good MPG. That's great....most of them aren't going to fit the XC90 buyer, so what does it really matter? Participants in this thread may say "I could care less if it hauls 7 people, I don't need that". Great....you are the minority of buyers in the XC90 portfolio as a whole in this country, just ask your dealer to show you the stats for the XC90. I doubt a 5-10% more usage of a fuel a year matters much to people spending $50,000 on a SUV. I buy cars that I'm passionate about, not ones that save me a couple of hundred bucks a year in fuel. I think most buyers will indeed see this. Besides, don't most of these "soccer moms" drive in town all day? The best in class city MPG seems to be pretty nice!

And then there is always that whole safety thing that Volvo excelled at......I'd trade 1 or 2 mpg for that.

stan
03-28-2015, 04:59 PM
From what I recall there was something about the EPA changing the way they will be calculating mpg in the future and the emphasis of the article was that future mpg would be less than they are now. Does anyone else have this recollection?

Paradox
03-28-2015, 05:05 PM
From what I recall there was something about the EPA changing the way they will be calculating mpg in the future and the emphasis of the article was that future mpg would be less than they are now. Does anyone else have this recollection?

I found this:


For the first time in over 10 years, the EPA is updating guidelines automakers use to determine vehicle fuel economy -- this will land for model-year 2017 vehicles, or those that go on sale in 2016.

It is text pulled from this article. (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/24/will-the-epas-new-fuel-economy-guidelines-crush-au.aspx)

Shopaholic
03-28-2015, 05:22 PM
I get the disappointment in the numbers from the XC90 rating... But all this comparison of X5 or Cayanne or ML to the XC90 baffles me......aren't we comparing 7 seat SUV?!?!? Isn't that the primary purpose people buy an XC90 is that it seats 7? So why would I be concerned about the competition that get 1 or 2 mpg better.....but can't seat the people or hold the cargo I have? I would buy and XC60 if I wanted to carry only 5 people.

You seem to mix up your needs and all the people here buying or intersed in buying the XC 90 as "soccer moms" that need a 7 seater. Not the case. I need only 4 seats, with good leg room for 6'3" x 2 in the back . I was cross shopping Cayenne and Range Rover, but liked the interior '/infotainment and wanted to give Volvo a shot. I can afford the gas, that is not the point.

Calhon
03-28-2015, 06:16 PM
Not sure what EPA has changed but the same (diesel) engine for the X5, a year or so ago, had a combined mileage rating of 22.
Still, XC90's combined 22 MPG is best in class among gasoline-powered 7-passenger SUVs (in its segment).

Correct. It was 19/26/22 for model year 2013.

finnvolvo
03-28-2015, 08:30 PM
Correct. It was 19/26/22 for model year 2013.

2013 would have been the previous generation (E70) X5 diesel.

iceman2g
03-28-2015, 10:13 PM
Not sure what EPA has changed but the same (diesel) engine for the X5, a year or so ago, had a combined mileage rating of 22.
Still, XC90's combined 22 MPG is best in class among gasoline-powered 7-passenger SUVs (in its segment).


From the section quoted in your post here (https://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?220879-2016-XC90-vs-BMW-X5-Visual-Comparison&p=2426024&viewfull=1#post2426024).

It would seem that person would have at least been talking about the 2014 model year. Thus to say I don't know what the EPA has changed, as it if somehow disqualifies the comparison of the X5 or your previous post is disingenuous.

The Volvo numbers are disappointing, plain and simple. All the hype about the fuel efficiency was all for naught. Given the choice I imagine most would take a 6 cyclinder in the new T6.

I hope some point down the road Volvo can add an additional 2 cyclinders to the VEA engine.

teefive
03-28-2015, 10:28 PM
Even the gas X5 6 cylinder gets 27mpg highway....

goVolvo
03-29-2015, 12:20 AM
Even the gas X5 6 cylinder gets 27mpg highway....

Others in the list are all below 27. X5 is exceptional. Why even? :) Is X5 supposed to be gas hungry? Well, depends how you drive it can easily be.:p

IIHS
03-29-2015, 12:30 AM
I'm more bemused by the width. Eighty-four inches? That's fatter than a crew-cab F-150!

This is going to be a fun one to park.

Tostik
03-29-2015, 12:33 AM
Except that the 4 cylinder BMW is always called our for sounding like a truck engine, I'd say Volvo has one of the best sounding 4 cylinders in this segment. And I think you will find the engine does have a HUGE increase in fuel economy over a six. Take the 3.2 in the old XC90 ad 16/25....that's a 20% improvement in city fuel economy on a car this is now larger, matches the highway economy AND makes 20% more power while doing it. 20% more power and 20% better fuel economy indeed sounds like huge improvement to me. Consider a XC60 T6 6 cylinder gets 15% worse economy in the city and seats 2 less people while having the same power. Sure it's not what we wished it was, but lets not overlook the marked improvement for what it is. We'll see what Audi's new Q7 is rated out and then you can compare.

:thumbup:

goVolvo
03-29-2015, 01:47 AM
I'm more bemused by the width. Eighty-four inches? That's fatter than a crew-cab F-150!

This is going to be a fun one to park.

The width is measured from tips of the side mirror, which is about 10 inch more than body width.

Yes this number is more helpful for looking for a parking spot. :D

VolvoFaRmeR
03-29-2015, 05:39 AM
You seem to mix up your needs and all the people here buying or intersed in buying the XC 90 as "soccer moms" that need a 7 seater. Not the case. I need only 4 seats, with good leg room for 6'3" x 2 in the back . I was cross shopping Cayenne and Range Rover, but liked the interior '/infotainment and wanted to give Volvo a shot. I can afford the gas, that is not the point.

Previously I stated......you are not the "typical buyer" of this car. That's not to diminish your wants or needs or your right to choose. However the statistics of the buyers of the XC90 Volvo will tell you are, by in large, much different than your personal needs. You are shopping cars Volvo has not designed this car to intentionally be cross-shopped with (and are virtually in a different price category as well). That's totally fine, but that's does not make my statements "mixed up" or without merit. My point is that, indeed, the largest segment of drivers of the XC90 are indeed suburban moms that need 6/7 seats. That's not my assessment of the buyers, that's Volvos. Those drivers spend lot of time in the city with "errand driving", and the 20 mpg is quite impressive for the XC90 in this scenario.

IIHS
03-29-2015, 08:15 AM
The width is measured from tips of the side mirror, which is about 10 inch more than body width.

Yes this number is more helpful for looking for a parking spot. :D

Ahh...that makes a lot more sense. :)

Paradox
03-29-2015, 08:25 AM
Ahh...that makes a lot more sense. :)

Width is:

75.7" for the chassis
76" for models with 18" & 19" wheels.
77.1 for models with 20" 21" & 22" wheels.
79.1" with the mirrors folded in
84.3 with the mirrors folded out

GrecianVolvo
03-29-2015, 08:56 AM
This is going to be a fun one to park.
It can park itself.

Anyway, I really think they need to teach parking skills (especially parallel) in driver's Ed, in this country.

teefive
03-29-2015, 09:05 AM
Others in the list are all below 27. X5 is exceptional. Why even? :) Is X5 supposed to be gas hungry? Well, depends how you drive it can easily be.:p

Everyone was comparing the XC90 to the X5 35d (the 3.0 i6 diesel here in the US.)

The XC90 is down two cylinders, lighter by a few hundred pounds, and has Haldex -- can't imagine why the X5 is almost 10% better on gas on the highway....

finnvolvo
03-29-2015, 09:39 AM
Car and Driver in their First Drive Review:

"The only shortcomings are the same ones that plague all modern, boost-dependent engines with an abundance of gear ratios. There’s no in-gear passing power, so even modest acceleration starts with a pause as the gearbox shifts down and boost builds. Pressure chargers also make for thirsty engines, and the indicated 17-mpg average seen during our test drive is likely closer to an owner’s reality than Volvo’s claim that the XC90 will deliver best-in-class fuel economy when the EPA numbers come in."

http://www.caranddriver.com/volvo/xc90

pattyweb
03-29-2015, 10:03 AM
It's said start/stop yields 10-15% improvement in city mileage. A lot of 6 cyl suvs can already get 17-19 mpg in the city on REGULAR fuel without start/stop. Just adding start/stop to them would get them to or even past 20mpg.

So is it really the 4 cyl DriveE that got Volvo to 20mpg city? or start/stop?

And then there's the issue of premium fuel. I feel like Volvo is trying to play both sides and leaving it up to consumers to play their own incorrect head games and come to the wrong conclusions.

We all know consumers look at EPA ratings so a manufacturer is going to want them to be as high as possible. The epa doesn't care about 0-60. If running regular fuel really doesn't harm the engine than it seems to me that the epa rating on regular fuel would have been lower, by enough, and it's the numbers from the epa that everybody sees first, most other people don't care about fuel grade or worry about it or a lot already were wasting their money using premium when they didn't need to. What else would volvo gain by stating epa premium vs regular? A lot of people are going to convince themselves that they'll get the same mpgs on regular. If you really could, then Volvo would have just stated that.

Where I live premium is currently commanding a 20% premium. A lot of people turn off their start/stop because they don't like it. If they do, combined with premium fuel, the XC90 is going to cost A LOT MORE in fuel per year than a lot of other bigger engine suvs.

The XC90 may have 'class leading' mpgs, but IMO not in the sense that most people care and it takes cherry picking to get there. For the way a lot of consumers are, the XC90 is not going to have the lowest annual fuel costs.

I like the DriveE engines, but Volvo really should have offered a bigger competitively priced engine for the XC90.

For a lot of consumers, this thread is irrelevant, they don't care or are smart enough to realize. For a lot of others, the issue is the numbers while not bad, are also not good enough to put the XC90 above any others really, especially after all the hype. For all the trouble, complexity, 1-2mpg is nothing, and I'm sure a significant amount of consumers if given the choice, would in a heartbeat prefer a more traditional suv engine.


The balloon has popped.

goVolvo
03-29-2015, 10:21 AM
Drive-E engine is lighter and saves gas versus a if-any 6cyl turbo from Volvo, in the context where weight saving is mentioned. Nowhere official have I read comparison with other 6cyl engines.

Also mpg is never the goal of this design. If mpg is desired, Volvo at least can easily make a FWD model that is 2mpg better, which I hope they do, as many people live in south and need no AWD all year around.

The "ballon" is all about "class leading milage" which is from here, not anything official.

goVolvo
03-29-2015, 10:23 AM
Comparing gas engine with diesel mpg? It is not wise to do so. I don't see everyone is doing that way.

ucla95
03-29-2015, 10:24 AM
It's said start/stop yields 10-15% improvement in city mileage.

http://newsroom.aaa.com/2014/07/aaas-tests-reveal-real-world-benefits-automatic-stop-start-technology/

pattyweb
03-29-2015, 10:54 AM
http://newsroom.aaa.com/2014/07/aaas-tests-reveal-real-world-benefits-automatic-stop-start-technology/

Thanks. Always interesting to read real world claims versus what various manufacturers state.

goVolvo
03-29-2015, 11:35 AM
XC60 Drive-E T6 FWD EPA rating is 22/30. With 400lbs more and AWD gears, 20 city is quite reasonable. 25hwy is lower than expected. 27 would look much better. Don't know what's the possible reason though. Understand it frustrates people but it is not the top concern for car buying.

What's the real world number for XC60? Maybe we have some data in the XC60 forum.

Paradox
03-29-2015, 11:43 AM
What's the real world number for XC60? Maybe we have some data in the XC60 forum.

Yes, there has been a great ongoing thread in there (2010+ XC60 forum) about people's mpg in the drive e t5 and t6.

https://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?213637-Real-life-fuel-economy-of-Drive-E-engines-in-MY15-XC60

GolfEsq
03-29-2015, 11:50 AM
Comparing gas engine with diesel mpg? It is not wise to do so. I don't see everyone is doing that way.

the gas version of the x5 (3.0 turbo) gets 18/27. diesel is 24/31. like others have said here, the bimmer is heavier, sounds way better, and gets comparable mileage. without a gas mileage benefit, no one would take a 4cyl over a 6cyl (especially one as sweet sounding as the bmw's inline 6).

goVolvo
03-29-2015, 11:56 AM
To put it simple, among the people buying X5 and new XC90, I wouldn't guess how many decisions are affected by gas milage. Maybe you are one of them.

GolfEsq
03-29-2015, 12:01 PM
To put it simple, among the people buying X5 and new XC90, I won't guess how many are based on gas milage. Maybe you are one.

Actually, I don't care about gas mileage unless it's really bad. But that isn't the point. Volvo touted class-leading fuel economy and they did not come through. Also, and like I said before, I would almost never prefer a 4cyl to a 6 (and I suspect most would agree with me). Just about the only advantage of a 4cyl is gas mileage. But if that advantage is missing, why did Volvo go with a 4cyl? Why not massage and fine tune their six cyl engines to be just as fuel efficient? BMW proved it is possible. We'll see if Audi can do the same (with their Q7).

Calhon
03-29-2015, 12:29 PM
It's said start/stop yields 10-15% improvement in city mileage.

Where did you get that?

The benefit of start-stop is about 5% on the EPA city cycle. The on-cycle benefit is so modest that some manufacturers (Mazda, among others) petitioned the EPA for extra off-cycle credit for installing start-stop. http://www.autonews.com/article/20141008/OEM11/141009782/mercedes-benz-rewarded-with-epa-credits-for-adopting-start-stop


Thanks. Always interesting to read real world claims versus what various manufacturers state.

From the AAA article:

AAA tested three vehicles equipped with automatic stop-start systems using the EPA’s “urban” driving cycle. With the automatic stop-start system engaged, the vehicles delivered improved fuel economy of up to seven percent over tests with the automatic stop-start technology disengaged.

goVolvo
03-29-2015, 12:43 PM
Actually, I don't care about gas mileage unless it's really bad. But that isn't the point. Volvo touted class-leading fuel economy and they did not come through. Also, and like I said before, I would almost never prefer a 4cyl to a 6 (and I suspect most would agree with me). Just about the only advantage of a 4cyl is gas mileage. But if that advantage is missing, why did Volvo go with a 4cyl? Why not massage and fine tune their six cyl engines to be just as fuel efficient? BMW proved it is possible. We'll see if Audi can do the same (with their Q7).

Now you are on the point, but it is not about milage. It is why no 6cyl turbo? It could well be the management team is all European people. Who knows. It should be a good experiment to at lease do some reality check by dropping current 3.0L V6 engine in XC90 and do some test drive. I hope the chasis dimension still allows this setup. Maybe the management team didn't see the necessity to do this test. Maybe after several years they will realize they were not wise doing 4cyl only in N.A. market. Maybe another management team will come and correct this. Maybe they will get enough resource and be able to actually tune and sell the V6 turbo in XC90. Maybe Polestar will do it. Whatever it will be, I think it no harm to sell 6cyl in N.A. It is a viable choice and one more engine choice is good for buyers and sales.

Mellow Guy
03-29-2015, 01:32 PM
I have a 2009 Toyota hybrid Highlander and get over 23 mpg average. Hybrids have considerably less brake wear.
Safety is the first requirement for a new vehicle followed by being a plug-in hybrid which will allow me to use cheap electricity for most of my small trips.

Calhon
03-29-2015, 01:47 PM
Volvo touted class-leading fuel economy and they did not come through.

Well, it is class-leading on city and combined but disappointingly mid-pack on highway mileage.


Why not massage and fine tune their six cyl engines to be just as fuel efficient? BMW proved it is possible. We'll see if Audi can do the same (with their Q7).

Because Volvo cannot afford to develop and maintain that many engine families, and the larger engines are on the way out given the regulatory trend towards higher mileage/lower CO2 emissions.

Why assume that Volvo would match BMW on the highway number with an improved 6-cyl when no other manufacturer has managed this, except Acura via cylinder deactivation, and the Acura city number is below BMW's? Does Volvo have a track record of engine development equal to BMW's and superior to, say, Audi's? No, they don't.

whizkid
03-29-2015, 02:06 PM
For the XC90, I wish they kept the 3.0L turbo I-6 as another engine option rather than going with only 4-cylinder engines, especially mated to the new 8-speed transmission. You could get away with the excellent supercharged/turbocharged Drive-E engine (316HP/295ft.lbs) in the S60/S80 sedans as it has to move less bulk and is designed more for performance.

But for the XC90, the halo drive-train for the uber fuel-economy minded consumer is the T8. Excellent engineering but far too expensive for most.

goVolvo
03-29-2015, 03:18 PM
For the XC90, I wish they kept the 3.0L turbo I-6 as another engine option rather than going with only 4-cylinder engines, especially mated to the new 8-speed transmission. You could get away with the excellent supercharged/turbocharged Drive-E engine (316HP/295ft.lbs) in the S60/S80 sedans as it has to move less bulk and is designed more for performance.

But for the XC90, the halo drive-train for the uber fuel-economy minded consumer is the T8. Excellent engineering but far too expensive for most.

While we are still waiting for T8 price in USA, from Canada pricing it is about 10k over same level T6. Minus about 4k tax credit it is only about 6k more than same level T6 or 10k more than T6 momentum. Considering momentum is 49k base, it is more stretchy for many buyers but not prohibited expensive.

dude174
03-29-2015, 03:38 PM
These numbers are hugely disappointing and fanboys can't spin it. I guess if the segment is euro SUV that seats 7 with awd and costs less than $60k and has decent towing then the T6 surely is great. Real world, people cross shop vehicles all the time that some of us wouldn't necessarily do. Sorry farmer but not every XC90 buyer needs or wants 7 passenger seating, perhaps many of them are longtime owners of the brand who were excited about this promised new direction and were willing to give Volvo a shot at their continued business.

Reality is only the T8 is a compelling choice because it's tech provides something better and different. The T6 is for the guy who the T8 brings in to the showroom and doesn't want the price premium for the hybrid because "how many times will you really use plug in anyway".

There are a ton of vehicles better than the T6 in the states. Cheaper, more expensive, seating more, seating less, etc. if your truly want the best grocery getter 7 seater, get a Tahoe - heck they get 22 on highway! Farmer your arguments remind me of the m3 guys who want their cake and eat it too - 911 isn't worth the $$ for performance over m3, but when asked to compare performance per dollar with say a mustang GT, well it's not a premium euro car.

So who will buy this? On the low end it's squeezed by GM trio (enclave, traverse, Acadia), ford, Subaru, Acura, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, etc if you want "value for the $$". Middle is squeezed by Lexus, cadillac srx. Real competition is the Germans and they have several models that fit your needs and price. VW group alone has Tiguan, Touareg, Q3, Q5, Q7, Macan, Cayenne. Surely among all those options there will be a vehicle that fits a buyers needs. Then bmw has x1, x3, x4, x5, x6. With those sizes and powertrains a buyer can't find 1? Volvo's problem is the XC90 has to compete with all because the rest of the lineup is dated and tired.

Piotrunho
03-29-2015, 03:59 PM
Maybe the mileage is not the most important value for me, but what was the point to make all the lineup 4-cylinder, if there are manufactureres which can do the same (or even better) with 6-cylinder engines. For me the best solution would be "old" T6 with new 8 speed automatic gearbox.

volvokhaled
03-29-2015, 04:04 PM
Maybe the mileage is not the most important value for me, but what was the point to make all the lineup 4-cylinder, if there are manufactureres which can do the same (or even better) with 6-cylinder engines. For me the best solution would be "old" T6 with new 8 speed automatic gearbox.

Emissions.

The regulations are getting tighter and they are forcing the makers to bring down the emissions drastically.

volvokhaled
03-29-2015, 04:07 PM
I must say the 25 mpg for Highway driving is very low considering that the same car (XC90 T6) can do 30-32 mpg in Europe for highway driving. That said, since its basically the same car I don't think it's impossible to achieve the same number in the US.

Calhon
03-29-2015, 04:25 PM
Emissions.

The regulations are getting tighter and they are forcing the makers to bring down the emissions drastically.

What emissions? In Europe, CO2 emissions are stressed, but it's analogous to mileage for a given type of fuel.

pattyweb
03-29-2015, 04:57 PM
Where did you get that?

I had just done a search and scanned the summaries for a few pages. I saw some around 10%, and there was one article that mentioned a "a 3mpg improvement" specifically for Volvo which I converted to 15% but looking again I see that is related to the diesel Volvos.

goVolvo
03-29-2015, 06:22 PM
These numbers are hugely disappointing and fanboys can't spin it. I guess if the segment is euro SUV that seats 7 with awd and costs less than $60k and has decent towing then the T6 surely is great. Real world, people cross shop vehicles all the time that some of us wouldn't necessarily do. Sorry farmer but not every XC90 buyer needs or wants 7 passenger seating, perhaps many of them are longtime owners of the brand who were excited about this promised new direction and were willing to give Volvo a shot at their continued business.

Reality is only the T8 is a compelling choice because it's tech provides something better and different. The T6 is for the guy who the T8 brings in to the showroom and doesn't want the price premium for the hybrid because "how many times will you really use plug in anyway".

There are a ton of vehicles better than the T6 in the states. Cheaper, more expensive, seating more, seating less, etc. if your truly want the best grocery getter 7 seater, get a Tahoe - heck they get 22 on highway! Farmer your arguments remind me of the m3 guys who want their cake and eat it too - 911 isn't worth the $$ for performance over m3, but when asked to compare performance per dollar with say a mustang GT, well it's not a premium euro car.

So who will buy this? On the low end it's squeezed by GM trio (enclave, traverse, Acadia), ford, Subaru, Acura, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, etc if you want "value for the $$". Middle is squeezed by Lexus, cadillac srx. Real competition is the Germans and they have several models that fit your needs and price. VW group alone has Tiguan, Touareg, Q3, Q5, Q7, Macan, Cayenne. Surely among all those options there will be a vehicle that fits a buyers needs. Then bmw has x1, x3, x4, x5, x6. With those sizes and powertrains a buyer can't find 1? Volvo's problem is the XC90 has to compete with all because the rest of the lineup is dated and tired.

There are so many cars competing in this segment. None of them is the best. Why they still sell? Who are buying them?

XC90 is not an almighty one created by God. Of couse it is not perfect in every aspect. But compared to the other cars in market, XC90 has damn good safety and technology, damn fine interior and build quality, all together that rarely any other car makers can compete with. You say no one is going to buy it? Please be serious, 16000 pre-orders are already keeping the factory super busy.

Calhon
03-29-2015, 07:22 PM
I had just done a search and scanned the summaries for a few pages. I saw some around 10%, and there was one article that mentioned a "a 3mpg improvement" specifically for Volvo which I converted to 15% but looking again I see that is related to the diesel Volvos.

The question was rhetorical. You also missed the fact that the X5, ML350 and the Cayenne have start-stop systems.

pattyweb
03-29-2015, 08:50 PM
The question was rhetorical. You also missed the fact that the X5, ML350 and the Cayenne have start-stop systems.

I knew the X5 had start/stop. The '15 MDX does not have start/stop (but it has cylinder deactivation). In digging deeper into the '16 MDX, it does offer start/stop on some higher models which is good for an add'l 1mpg. I did not bother checking every single suv since I found enough that didn't have it. There are other non-luxury 6cyl SUVs not on your list that weigh the same or even more than the XC90 that do not have start/stop but in the end achieve almost the same mpgs (or better in highway) and/or cost less per year in fuel since they only need regular. Of course, they have less powerful 6cyl engines and they give up 0-60 so a lot of this is apples to oranges.

I think the issue with the XC90 is that Volvo is wanting to give impressive 0-60 performance. Many people (me included) complained that the 1st gen T5 was too slow to get out of it's own way. I think Volvo did not want to risk that in any way.

Most likely the balloon would not have popped had Volvo 1st released a FWD T5 XC90. Volvo can always put the air back into it should they choose to release that assuming it actually gets significantly better numbers. It would be very interesting to see what it would be rated.

Piotrunho
03-30-2015, 06:36 AM
Emissions.

The regulations are getting tighter and they are forcing the makers to bring down the emissions drastically.

You are absolutely right, but I cannot believe, that you cannot make 6-cylinder engine with proper emissions rate.

volvokhaled
03-30-2015, 06:45 AM
You are absolutely right, but I cannot believe, that you cannot make 6-cylinder engine with proper emissions rate.

I think it's possible to make a 6-cyl engine with proper emission rates, but for the longer run a 4-cyl engine is probably easier to modify for even lower emissions.

VolvoFaRmeR
03-30-2015, 08:34 AM
You really thing the inline 6 would have better fuel economy than the 4 cylinder?!?! The two motors make basically the same power and torque, and you think a heavier 6 would some how given better mileage?!? You guys have completely lost sight of what it coming in the future. BWM is developing it's 3 cylinder, MB is putting 4 cylinders in everything soon, Audi is putting 4 cylinder in Q7. Why? Emissions!!! Don't you understand these companies are PAYING the government fines for not meeting emissions targets on some models already, and they are scaling down motor size fast. Heck, the M cars from BWM now have turbos, Ferrari has turbos, etc......Volvo is ahead of the curve.

You wait in 5 years and see if Volvo isn't way ahead of everyone from the git go on emissions and regulations. Sure, they might not have what you consider "competitive" motors at this second, but when everyone else switches to 4 cylinders as well, and 6s are the premium sporty product with a huge price tag in small numbers it wouldn't look that way. Why is everyone acting so surprised they didn't put in a 6 in the XC90? We've been told that's whats going to happen for YEARS.

You can't please everyone. Some of you just have a chip on your shoulder about 4 cylinders sucking, and all these other aspirations about how 6s would make the product better...... Whatever. Volvo isn't a big company and can't do what the other big-boys can. They stuck to a strategy that allows them to sell to the largest % buying segment. If you wan't a 6 so bad, then go somewhere else. In the end I doubt Volvo really cares about a few missed sales over horsepower......Volvo always has been.

I'm so sick of this "fan boy spin" rubbish on how we are trying to glorify the 4 cylinder when it really kinda sucks. Ridiculous I'm tired of the "fan boy spin" trying to tell me how great the 6 and 8s are than Volvo doesn't offer. Some of you seem to think your buying preference represents everyone else, when the reality is you are the smallest sliver of the buying segment. Hope you enjoy your 6 and 8s, cause soon they will be a limited-production version at the rate things are going. We heard all these years that the 5 cylinder was also ridiculous and Volvo should have offered a different motor, etc......whatever. Millions of people have enjoyed the 5. Millions more will enjoy the 4. The USA isn't Volvo's bread and butter market....don't expect them to build special cars just for us. Those days are over...for basically every brand going forward.

Go drive a 4 cylinder XC90 and then you can complain all you want. Until then, all this harsh criticism is just arm-chair opinions. Those opinions usually SUCK as far as I'm concerned. As you can see the factory is overwhelmed with production as it stands. I doubt they care much about a few Amercians than want a 6 cylinder. Soon BWM, Audi, and MB will all be in the same mind set as well.

Calhon
03-30-2015, 11:03 AM
I must say the 25 mpg for Highway driving is very low considering that the same car (XC90 T6) can do 30-32 mpg in Europe for highway driving. That said, since its basically the same car I don't think it's impossible to achieve the same number in the US.

The mention of Europe reminds me of another odd thing about the EPA highway mileage. The XC90's Euro cycle numbers are actually better than the X5's across the board, 24/36/31 vs 21/34/28, but the EPA numbers are 20/25/22 vs 18/27/21. The relationship between the highway numbers is exactly reversed.

VolvoFaRmeR
03-30-2015, 12:17 PM
I'm wondering if Volvo is actually surprised at the results.....clearly the Euro numbers seem better on paper. Perhaps that is why it's taken so long to release them....Volvo was working with the EPA to try and make sure the test was done several times as the results were not meeting the companies internal projections. I find it odd there Euro and American tests show such different outcomes.

adp
03-30-2015, 03:16 PM
The EU regulatory agencies are not the SAME as the US EPA. It doesn't surprise me, at all, that the numbers would be different. What would be surprising is if the #s were the same under two different tests.

I'm one of those guys who is perfectly content with the 5 cylinder engines Volvo has been using. I own two of them (I think). Even though I have solar panels on the roof of my home and used "sustainability" practices when remodeling my home, MPG was not the most important factor when choosing my XC90 or my C30.

Still, I may opt for the T8 when the time comes, as I like the benefits of using mostly electric when driving in the urban core/commuting at low MPH.

and I don't care about 7 seats, though I DO care about the added cargo capacity of the XC90 over the XC60. I don't want to put a cargo box on my roof for extended trips. (and I do realize that I may be in the minority on this - I have not needed the 3rd row much, but I appreciate that it is useful for resale, so I am OK with it. Not that I have a choice!)

whizkid
03-30-2015, 04:10 PM
I'm wondering if Volvo is actually surprised at the results.....clearly the Euro numbers seem better on paper. Perhaps that is why it's taken so long to release them....Volvo was working with the EPA to try and make sure the test was done several times as the results were not meeting the companies internal projections. I find it odd there Euro and American tests show such different outcomes.

Not that I've looked, but I would hope that people on here are not confusing gasoline engines and their respective fuel-economy with diesel engines and their respective (and normally higher) fuel-economy numbers. Diesel cars are far more common in Europe and tends to be what fuels the majority of cars across the pond. Diesel engines (especially the modern ones) are much more fuel efficient than gasoline engines.

Calhon
03-30-2015, 04:14 PM
The EU regulatory agencies are not the SAME as the US EPA. It doesn't surprise me, at all, that the numbers would be different. What would be surprising is if the #s were the same under two different tests.


Agreed, but that misses my point. Typically, I expect Vehicle A to do better than Vehicle B on the EPA city or highway test, if it does significantly better than Vehicle B on the equivalent Euro test. Vehicle B doing significantly better on the EPA city or highway test but significantly worse on the equivalent Euro test, relative to Vehicle A, seems odd to me.

The new EPA guidelines that someone mentioned earlier may be at the heart of the matter. They make it more difficult for the manufacturers to game the system. I suspect Volvo used the new guidelines, although they don't go into effect until model year 2017, to avoid having to lower the numbers retroactively.

I will be interesting to see what happens to the mpg numbers for the other Drive-E models between now and 2017. Likewise, for the other manufacturers, especially BMW, which failed EPA audits on the 3 Series in 2012 and on the Mini last year.

goVolvo
03-30-2015, 05:09 PM
Agreed, but that misses my point. Typically, I expect Vehicle A to do better than Vehicle B on the EPA city or highway test, if it does significantly better than Vehicle B on the equivalent Euro test. Vehicle B doing significantly better on the EPA city or highway test but significantly worse on the equivalent Euro test, relative to Vehicle A, seems odd to me.

The new EPA guidelines that someone mentioned earlier may be at the heart of the matter. They make it more difficult for the manufacturers to game the system. I suspect Volvo used the new guidelines, although they don't go into effect until model year 2017, to avoid having to lower the numbers retroactively.

I will be interesting to see what happens to the mpg numbers for the other Drive-E models between now and 2017. Likewise, for the other manufacturers, especially BMW, which failed EPA audits on the 3 Series in 2012 and on the Mini last year.

Make sense. Need to see EPA numbers for the 2016 model year cars together. The number of a model year 2016 and another 2015 car maybe is not exactly comparable.

adp
03-30-2015, 05:18 PM
Agreed, but that misses my point. Typically, I expect Vehicle A to do better than Vehicle B on the EPA city or highway test, if it does significantly better than Vehicle B on the equivalent Euro test. Vehicle B doing significantly better on the EPA city or highway test but significantly worse on the equivalent Euro test, relative to Vehicle A, seems odd to me.

The new EPA guidelines that someone mentioned earlier may be at the heart of the matter. They make it more difficult for the manufacturers to game the system. I suspect Volvo used the new guidelines, although they don't go into effect until model year 2017, to avoid having to lower the numbers retroactively.

I will be interesting to see what happens to the mpg numbers for the other Drive-E models between now and 2017. Likewise, for the other manufacturers, especially BMW, which failed EPA audits on the 3 Series in 2012 and on the Mini last year.

I agree that your basic assumption is a fair and logical one, but I don't think it's as logical as it used to be. EPA is going for a testing approach that is more "real world" than what they used to do, for better or worse. Yes, it means the US estimate MPG numbers will be lower than they would have been under the prior test, but it also means that fewer consumers will be screaming, "You lied! My car is not getting the MPG the sticker said it would."

But I agree that it is odd that the MPG #s would be different than the US #s, in this way.

I am not familiar with what the EU is doing re MPG testing, so....

12Ounce
03-31-2015, 08:21 AM
You really thing the inline 6 would have better fuel economy than the 4 cylinder?!?! ........
........You wait in 5 years and see if Volvo isn't way ahead of everyone from the git go on emissions and regulations...
..You can't please everyone. ......
.
If the displacement is similar between the two engines .. I can see a smoother running six could outperform a rumbling four in efficiency. After all, those counterbalance shafts used to smooth-up an engine cost fuel ... not as much needed on a six, if any at all. At least I "thing" so.
.
Good advice! I will wait five years. And perhaps five more.... before considering Volvo again.
.
True, you can't please everyone. But Volvo is hardly pleasing anyone. (Having one of the lowest loyalty numbers in the industry convinces me.)
.
I keep reading bout those 16000 pre-orders and how that huge order is almost crippling the assembly plant. How about a reality check. How many of those orders are for Volvo employees? And most Detroit based plants produce 60 jph. That's a vehicle-per-minute! I'll let you do the math: how many days of two ten hour shifts would it take such a plant to make 16000 units? It ain't such a big order for many brands.

BrianV
03-31-2015, 09:06 AM
I get the disappointment in the numbers from the XC90 rating... But all this comparison of X5 or Cayanne or ML to the XC90 baffles me......aren't we comparing 7 seat SUV?!?!? Isn't that the primary purpose people buy an XC90 is that it seats 7? So why would I be concerned about the competition that get 1 or 2 mpg better.....but can't seat the people or hold the cargo I have? I would buy and XC60 if I wanted to carry only 5 people. These comparisons see rather academic to me, as they don't really play out a large % of the time in the actual sales of a 5 seat vs 7 seat. That's the beauty of the XC90...is has few piers.

Sure the other brands have some great SUVs, some with great power trains and good MPG. That's great....most of them aren't going to fit the XC90 buyer, so what does it really matter? Participants in this thread may say "I could care less if it hauls 7 people, I don't need that". Great....you are the minority of buyers in the XC90 portfolio as a whole in this country, just ask your dealer to show you the stats for the XC90. I doubt a 5-10% more usage of a fuel a year matters much to people spending $50,000 on a SUV. I buy cars that I'm passionate about, not ones that save me a couple of hundred bucks a year in fuel. I think most buyers will indeed see this. Besides, don't most of these "soccer moms" drive in town all day? The best in class city MPG seems to be pretty nice!

And then there is always that whole safety thing that Volvo excelled at......I'd trade 1 or 2 mpg for that.

So what cars do you think will be cross-shopped? Also, the X5 is available with a third row and whilst it is VERY cramped back there, I just had a 2014 XC90 loaner and put 6 people in it and the back row of the XC90 was similar to what I recall the X5's to be. Personally, I think shoppers of this class buy these cars with the third row being a "nice to have in a pinch" feature. True families of 5 or 6 that will regularly use the 3rd row our better served by a minivan of a full size SUV (Sequoia, Armada, Tahoe/Escalade, Expedition/Navigator, etc.).

Unlike you, I think the Acura MDX and BMW X5 will probably be the most cross shopped cars (QX60 to lesser degree).

To the others, I think it's important to note that people take many things into consideration when dropping this kind of coin. One issue I have is that we're coming from a quite quick XC60 R-Design and going to a heavier and less powerful SUV is not so worthwhile. If the gas mileage difference was notable, maybe it's an easier pill to swallow (trading performance for significant economy gains). At the end of the day though, it is just hard to compare the XC90 on paper to the BMW in terms of anything performance related.

BMW X5 35i - 27 mph highway, 0-60 in 5.9 seconds, Inline 6 refinement, presumably way better handling, etc.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1410_2014_bmw_x5_first_test/

I do prefer the Volvo styling and having owned a previous generation X5, I prefer the uniqueness of Volvo, but for this kind of money, I might kick myself every time I see an X5, especially ripping by me up a mountain pass.

BrianV
03-31-2015, 09:08 AM
Maybe the mileage is not the most important value for me, but what was the point to make all the lineup 4-cylinder, if there are manufactureres which can do the same (or even better) with 6-cylinder engines. For me the best solution would be "old" T6 with new 8 speed automatic gearbox.

Old T6 was really beyond its time. Port injected and abysmal gas mileage. 17/23 in the XC60, I imagine it'd do 20-21 hwy on the XC90. With that kind of mileage, you are into twin turbo V8 country. Also, since that engine is in an east/west configuration, Volvo admitted that it was very difficult to get a transmission to fit in there, I don't think the ZF 8-speeds or any 8 speed packages up nicely enough to fit in an I6 East/West.

Piotrunho
03-31-2015, 09:50 AM
Exactly, in Europe Mercedes is improving brand new inline-6 engine line. Volvo decided to put a turbo and supercharger in one engine, although the Volkswagen engines with such a solution really lacked durability. The only way I can understand the Volvo's approach is that they are doing something like "escape forward". Probably in 10 tears most of the cars will be 3- and 4-cylinder hybrids. Unfortunately, now Volvo loses against its main competitors offering very good 6-cylinder with proper mileage (especially BMW 35i).

.
If the displacement is similar between the two engines .. I can see a smoother running six could outperform a rumbling four in efficiency. After all, those counterbalance shafts used to smooth-up an engine cost fuel ... not as much needed on a six, if any at all. At least I "thing" so.
.
Good advice! I will wait five years. And perhaps five more.... before considering Volvo again.
.
True, you can't please everyone. But Volvo is hardly pleasing anyone. (Having one of the lowest loyalty numbers in the industry convinces me.)
.
I keep reading bout those 16000 pre-orders and how that huge order is almost crippling the assembly plant. How about a reality check. How many of those orders are for Volvo employees? And most Detroit based plants produce 60 jph. That's a vehicle-per-minute! I'll let you do the math: how many days of two ten hour shifts would it take such a plant to make 16000 units? It ain't such a big order for many brands.

teefive
03-31-2015, 11:31 AM
You really thing the inline 6 would have better fuel economy than the 4 cylinder?!?! The two motors make basically the same power and torque, and you think a heavier 6 would some how given better mileage?!? You guys have completely lost sight of what it coming in the future. BWM is developing it's 3 cylinder, MB is putting 4 cylinders in everything soon, Audi is putting 4 cylinder in Q7. Why? Emissions!!! Don't you understand these companies are PAYING the government fines for not meeting emissions targets on some models already, and they are scaling down motor size fast. Heck, the M cars from BWM now have turbos, Ferrari has turbos, etc......Volvo is ahead of the curve.

You wait in 5 years and see if Volvo isn't way ahead of everyone from the git go on emissions and regulations. Sure, they might not have what you consider "competitive" motors at this second, but when everyone else switches to 4 cylinders as well, and 6s are the premium sporty product with a huge price tag in small numbers it wouldn't look that way. Why is everyone acting so surprised they didn't put in a 6 in the XC90? We've been told that's whats going to happen for YEARS.

You can't please everyone. Some of you just have a chip on your shoulder about 4 cylinders sucking, and all these other aspirations about how 6s would make the product better...... Whatever. Volvo isn't a big company and can't do what the other big-boys can. They stuck to a strategy that allows them to sell to the largest % buying segment. If you wan't a 6 so bad, then go somewhere else. In the end I doubt Volvo really cares about a few missed sales over horsepower......Volvo always has been.

I'm so sick of this "fan boy spin" rubbish on how we are trying to glorify the 4 cylinder when it really kinda sucks. Ridiculous I'm tired of the "fan boy spin" trying to tell me how great the 6 and 8s are than Volvo doesn't offer. Some of you seem to think your buying preference represents everyone else, when the reality is you are the smallest sliver of the buying segment. Hope you enjoy your 6 and 8s, cause soon they will be a limited-production version at the rate things are going. We heard all these years that the 5 cylinder was also ridiculous and Volvo should have offered a different motor, etc......whatever. Millions of people have enjoyed the 5. Millions more will enjoy the 4. The USA isn't Volvo's bread and butter market....don't expect them to build special cars just for us. Those days are over...for basically every brand going forward.

Go drive a 4 cylinder XC90 and then you can complain all you want. Until then, all this harsh criticism is just arm-chair opinions. Those opinions usually SUCK as far as I'm concerned. As you can see the factory is overwhelmed with production as it stands. I doubt they care much about a few Amercians than want a 6 cylinder. Soon BWM, Audi, and MB will all be in the same mind set as well.

Sorry, but I doubt most consumers will see it like that: they see an SUV with a 4 cylinder that's slower and has worse fuel economy than the 6-cylinder competitor.

BrianV
03-31-2015, 01:05 PM
Sorry, but I doubt most consumers will see it like that: they see an SUV with a 4 cylinder that's slower and has worse fuel economy than the 6-cylinder competitor.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!!

goVolvo
03-31-2015, 01:16 PM
Sorry, but I doubt most consumers will see it like that: they see an SUV with a 4 cylinder that's slower and has worse fuel economy than the 6-cylinder competitor.

Did people say XC60 is slow and worse fuel economy?

VolvoFaRmeR
03-31-2015, 01:57 PM
Sorry, but I doubt most consumers will see it like that: they see an SUV with a 4 cylinder that's slower and has worse fuel economy than the 6-cylinder competitor.

Like the 4 cylinder Q7!?!? Give me a break........ Oh wait, what other 6 cylinder 7 passenger SUVs are out there in the this price range in the luxury market to compare to the XC90? Yeah....pretty much none with out dropping another $20,000. And I'd not call the XC90 slow, are you kidding?

Who cares what the EPA numbers are, it's the real world MPG that matters.....and many of these fabulous 6-clinder SUVs get horrible milage in the real world.

When sales go through the roof, and in 5 years there are hardly any 6 cylinder models out there except at the high-priced sport level you can decide if Volvo was right or wrong. It's called product planning for the future.

Jekecy
03-31-2015, 02:14 PM
Who cares what the EPA numbers are, it's the real world MPG that matters.....and many of these fabulous 6-clinder SUVs get horrible milage in the real world.
Isn't that even worse for the XC90s case? If real-world numbers tend to be lower than the "ideal" ratings?

adp
03-31-2015, 02:42 PM
who are these people who buy an SUV for "performance"?

Personally, I don't know any. I have one friend with a Land Rover, but he drives it like an old man. I'd say he bought it for the luxe aspect and not for performance.

If you buy an SUV for "performance" you are a dope

SUVs are for hauling people and stuff, not taking corners at an aggressive speed.

I LOVE how my 2004 XC90 T5 drives, and I am very confident the new 90 will drive even better.

People have suggested that any buyer who considers the XC90 would not consider any 5-seat SUV. I suggest that even FEWER potential XC90 buyers care about "performance" - it's about utility and "the package" - No one drives an SUV like they stole it.

I probably know 20 different SUV owners, and not one of them bought their SUV for "performance"

(ps, when I say "performance" I don't mean "utility" - offroad ability or towing ability is not "performance" in the way we are using the term)

for every Cayenne driver I know, I know at least 10 people who drive a Denali, an XC90, an Escalade. None of those people are kidding themselves and pretending they bought a performance sedan.

SUV owners want the confidence to merge onto the highway; they don't care about cornering at high speed. Some of you guys are silly.

BrianV
03-31-2015, 04:07 PM
who are these people who buy an SUV for "performance"?

Personally, I don't know any. I have one friend with a Land Rover, but he drives it like an old man. I'd say he bought it for the luxe aspect and not for performance.

If you buy an SUV for "performance" you are a dope

SUVs are for hauling people and stuff, not taking corners at an aggressive speed.

I LOVE how my 2004 XC90 T5 drives, and I am very confident the new 90 will drive even better.

People have suggested that any buyer who considers the XC90 would not consider any 5-seat SUV. I suggest that even FEWER potential XC90 buyers care about "performance" - it's about utility and "the package" - No one drives an SUV like they stole it.

I probably know 20 different SUV owners, and not one of them bought their SUV for "performance"

(ps, when I say "performance" I don't mean "utility" - offroad ability or towing ability is not "performance" in the way we are using the term)

for every Cayenne driver I know, I know at least 10 people who drive a Denali, an XC90, an Escalade. None of those people are kidding themselves and pretending they bought a performance sedan.

SUV owners want the confidence to merge onto the highway; they don't care about cornering at high speed. Some of you guys are silly.

I agree with you to an extent, but big heavy SUVs that then are loaded with people and crap and then have to go over mountain passes do require substantial reserve power. So while I don't focus on 0-60 as a primary motivator of my purchase of an SUV, it needs to have enough gusto to accelerate with ease and make safe passes, etc. No complaints with the XC60 RD for that matter. I scratch my head a little when I see people drop huge coin for the Audi SQ5 or Macan Turbo. Might as well get the Audi S4 and a $20K Toyota Rav4 and you'd be better off in the performance and utility section for the same amount of money.

That said, I don't think anyone is truly disagreeing with you, I think the main point is two-fold in regards to this performance vs MPG:

1. There are other competitors that get better mileage and are notably faster (X5 35i is best example)
1a.. The pure perception is that I6, 0-60 in 5.9 seconds and 27 mpg hwy is better than I4, 0-60 in ~7 seconds and 25 mpg hwy

2. If Volvo came out and was getting 30+ mpg hwy (best in class), I think people would more easily justify the I4 and acceleration deficiencies. That's the main point I guess.

Volvo will still do well as it's a good, safe and sharp looking vehicle. It's certainly priced a bit better than the German cars, but so was the last generation. At $60K well equipped, an XC90 is still very expensive for an entry-luxury brand with a 4-cylinder engine. Many people can afford $60K will simply say, I'll spend $70K and get the X5 similarly loaded and will get it back in resale, etc. Or more likely, they'll get the T8 for about the same price as the X5 and have likely superior mileage and economy.

We can't predict the future, but when someone comes out and says they're expecting best in class and fall well short of it, people get disappointed. I believe we're all on this forum because we want the XC90 to do well.

Finally, in my house, I care more about performance and refinement, but my wife stares at MPG when shopping. Not because we can't afford the gas, just because gas could sky rocket and the perception (at her company which makes fruit-named mobile phones and tablets), fuel efficiency and being green is important. We were talking about our next SUV and she said (in regards to the XC60RD), "I want the next SUV to be larger for the growing family and get better gas mileage." I told her XC90 gets 25 mpg and BMW gets 27. She asked is the Volvo faster/have more power, I said no, not really, it's slower. She said, well the BMW sounds better.

goVolvo
03-31-2015, 04:29 PM
We were talking about our next SUV and she said (in regards to the XC60RD), "I want the next SUV to be larger for the growing family and get better gas mileage." I told her XC90 gets 25 mpg and BMW gets 27. She asked is the Volvo faster/have more power, I said no, not really, it's slower. She said, well the BMW sounds better.

In this regards of fast/mpg, yes X5 35i is better, because it is the one best in the class. But XC90 T6 is still above average in the class, and T8 will beat X5 for local or short highway driving, with similar or even cheaper price.

But buying a car is much more than just acceleration and mpg. Go with your wife to sit in a XC90 when the demo car arrives, and sit in a X5, and see what she would say.

adp
03-31-2015, 05:07 PM
I agree with you to an extent, but big heavy SUVs that then are loaded with people and crap and then have to go over mountain passes do require substantial reserve power. So while I don't focus on 0-60 as a primary motivator of my purchase of an SUV, it needs to have enough gusto to accelerate with ease and make safe passes, etc. No complaints with the XC60 RD for that matter. I scratch my head a little when I see people drop huge coin for the Audi SQ5 or Macan Turbo. Might as well get the Audi S4 and a $20K Toyota Rav4 and you'd be better off in the performance and utility section for the same amount of money....

We were talking about our next SUV and she said (in regards to the XC60RD), "I want the next SUV to be larger for the growing family and get better gas mileage." I told her XC90 gets 25 mpg and BMW gets 27. She asked is the Volvo faster/have more power, I said no, not really, it's slower. She said, well the BMW sounds better.

That is the extent of your analysis of X5 versus XC90? No mention of 7 seats? No mention of cargo capacity or safety? Seriously? (I don't even WANT the third row, but I recognize that it adds value and needs to be considered. But maybe resale value is irrelevant to you, which is your prerogative, of course.)

Do you think the Rav4 has the same abilities offroad as the Macan?

With all the safety stuff on the Volvo versus what is on the X5, I'm HAPPY to drive a lower MPG XC90 over a more efficient X5. That $100 you save/year driving the X5 ain't worth much if you're dead.

and you'll never "recover" the cost differential between the X5 and the XC90 through that MPG difference.

but I realize that is somewhat irrelevant if mpg is your most important parameter, as it's not always about the COST of gas, but the BURNING of gas

10PassionRed
03-31-2015, 05:09 PM
who are these people who buy an SUV for "performance"?

Personally, I don't know any. I have one friend with a Land Rover, but he drives it like an old man. I'd say he bought it for the luxe aspect and not for performance.

If you buy an SUV for "performance" you are a dope

SUVs are for hauling people and stuff, not taking corners at an aggressive speed.

I LOVE how my 2004 XC90 T5 drives, and I am very confident the new 90 will drive even better.

People have suggested that any buyer who considers the XC90 would not consider any 5-seat SUV. I suggest that even FEWER potential XC90 buyers care about "performance" - it's about utility and "the package" - No one drives an SUV like they stole it.

I probably know 20 different SUV owners, and not one of them bought their SUV for "performance"

(ps, when I say "performance" I don't mean "utility" - offroad ability or towing ability is not "performance" in the way we are using the term)

for every Cayenne driver I know, I know at least 10 people who drive a Denali, an XC90, an Escalade. None of those people are kidding themselves and pretending they bought a performance sedan.

SUV owners want the confidence to merge onto the highway; they don't care about cornering at high speed. Some of you guys are silly.

Completely disagree. XC60RD in our garage gets driven like it was stolen. I love the performance of it. If I could afford a Cayenne Turbo S I'd go for that. Love the combination of sport and space.

adp
03-31-2015, 05:17 PM
Completely disagree. XC60RD in our garage gets driven like it was stolen. I love the performance of it. If I could afford a Cayenne Turbo S I'd go for that. Love the combination of sport and space.

I don't consider the XC60 to be an SUV, but I accept your premise. Still, that's less than 1% of XC60 owners.

I've never accepted the premise that a wagon or a minivan is really an "SUV" - but I do agree that there are performance-oriented wagons.

BrianV
03-31-2015, 06:31 PM
That is the extent of your analysis of X5 versus XC90? No mention of 7 seats? No mention of cargo capacity or safety? Seriously? (I don't even WANT the third row, but I recognize that it adds value and needs to be considered. But maybe resale value is irrelevant to you, which is your prerogative, of course.)

I did mention 7-seats in my earlier post (#99), and I owned a 2009 X5. I wrote:

"the X5 is available with a third row and whilst it is VERY cramped back there, I just had a 2014 XC90 loaner and put 6 people in it and the back row of the XC90 was similar to what I recall the X5's to be. Personally, I think shoppers of this class buy these cars with the third row being a "nice to have in a pinch" feature. True families of 5 or 6 that will regularly use the 3rd row are better served by a minivan of a full size SUV (Sequoia, Armada, Tahoe/Escalade, Expedition/Navigator, etc.)."

I won't argue with safety, Volvo does win there by brand, but the X5 does have 5-star crash results in every category except Roll-over including the new overlap tests. If safety is important to you and you have any desire to cross-shop, you should refer to this:
http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2014-bmw-x5-5-series-get-perfect-scores-in-crash-test-ratings.html

I fail to realize again why you think I have a hard-on for this MPG issue. The issue 99% of people have on this thread boils down to the next two points:

1) Volvo came out in quotes and claimed best in class MPG. I do not feel they met that claim. Hence the desire for many people to post their disappointment.
2) With potentially the most green and by far smallest engine available in the class, they still failed to create an SUV that out performs an incumbent older model in terms of performance or efficiency.

So that leads many of us to say, why would a consumer prefer a less-efficient engine that delivers less refinement and power than a competitor. Who knows, you better like other things about the XC90 better, but since this thread is MPG related, I'm trying to stay on focus.

In regards to refinement (related to the choice to go I4 in an efficiency quest), in the XC60 forums, people have commented the old T6 was more refined and smoother/quieter than the new Drive-E T6. I've not seen that back to back and opinion is subjective, but it would make sense an Inline-6 is quieter and smoother than a Dual-FI'd I4 (history is in the I6 favor). The old T6 was already considered by most to be less refined than BMW's highly awarded N55 engine. So many here ask, what is the advantage of this whole Drive-E strategy, Volvo said it was for efficiency, but some of us are left scratching our heads on whether they got enough efficiency to justify the exotic-ness and other set-backs (perception included) of going I4 dual-FI.

That is all, had Volvo not come out and made a big splash during their release and praised themselves as creating the best-in-class MPG SUV, I imagine there would be half as many posts in this thread.

adp
03-31-2015, 06:37 PM
I fail to realize again why you think I have a hard-on for this MPG issue. .

Hi, Brian. Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound that way.

BrianV
03-31-2015, 06:54 PM
Hi, Brian. Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound that way.

No prob, it makes a dull day go by faaster. I added in other posts, but I really like Volvo, I like our Volvo and the XC90 was/is on the very top of our next car list. However, I can't ignore the X5, and I do have slight reservations in going from a quicker XC60 to a slower XC90. I do believe I could overlook that more if it was getting significantly better MPG, at 25 mpg, now the X5 wins out in economy and performance. That said, I prefer the styling (inside and out), size and value of the Volvo. Ultimately, it's my wife's car, she will decide, but she stares at MPG more than heavily than I do. She also stares at price and exterior looks.

Cheers mate!

GrecianVolvo
03-31-2015, 08:18 PM
e talking about our next SUV and she said (in regards to the XC60RD), "I want the next SUV to be larger for the growing family and get better gas mileage." I told her XC90 gets 25 mpg and BMW gets 27. She asked is the Volvo faster/have more power, I said no, not really, it's slower. She said, well the BMW sounds better.
Combined mileage (which is what really counts) the X5 and the XC90 are tied. When it comes to utility and overall space, the XC90 wins hands down. Therefore, how does the BMW sound better? :confused:

BrianV
03-31-2015, 10:10 PM
Combined mileage (which is what really counts) the X5 and the XC90 are tied. When it comes to utility and overall space, the XC90 wins hands down. Therefore, how does the BMW sound better? :confused:

Agreed, it tied on combined. Please pat yourself on the back that a car that weighs less and has an engine 2/3 the size gets the 'same' mileage and is notably slower. The rated horsepower is even lower in the X5, but of course everyone knows the N55 is ridiculously underrated from the factory and the 5.9 second 0-60 times prove how effective that engine is (stock dynos show 280WHP). In conclusion of the X5, it seems to exceed the XC90 in pretty much everything in the 'dynamic' category while matching and beating (on the hwy) the efficiency of the Volvo. The BMW N55 has been out for 6+ years (came out in 2009) and wasn't designed for ultimate efficiency from the onset like Volvo's seemingly was. I guess that speaks to Munich's engine making capabilities...

I agree, the XC90 is larger, but there are many larger SUVs that get respectable and superior mileage to the XC90 as well.

Also, while I LOVE our Volvo, it is spunky and lacks a lot of the refinement available in my past BMWs and Audis. Everything from the optimal handling vs comfort (my 2009 X5 rode way better and handled way better than the XC60RD), drivetrain smoothness, throttle engagement, brakes, etc. That said, the Volvo tends to win my heart with styling and Swedish uniqueness (the early 21st century R's and T6 R-Design of the most recent generations especially).

I agree, the XC90 is larger (and looks better), and I only brought the X5 into the equation due to performance vs MPG which is relevant to the thread topic. Since doing so and doing more research on the X5, it makes the X5 that much more attractive. Also, the diesel offerings from the "German Trio" can all be included with superior efficiency and comparable performance as well as Japanese competitors the MDX and QX60. It's a tough segment for sure.

Obviously, speaking with the honesty of an actual prospective buyer on a Volvo forum is proving to be futile.

Speaking of combined MPG as you brought up, the new Explorer's 2.3 Liter Ecoboost engine surpasses the 2.0 Liter Volvo's economy in an equally large vehicle (20/28mpg).

I guess my conclusion is that I applaud Volvo for combining forced induction technologies to make a more efficient engine with respectable power, I just don't think its results are extremely fruitful in 2015. The T8 is seemingly relevant though. If I buy the Volvo, it will not be for the powertrain, and by powertain I mean the combination of refinement, performance and efficiency (regrettably that's an important aspect in our decision).

Carry on...

finnvolvo
03-31-2015, 10:33 PM
who are these people who buy an SUV for "performance"?

If you buy an SUV for "performance" you are a dope

SUVs are for hauling people and stuff, not taking corners at an aggressive speed.

SUV owners want the confidence to merge onto the highway; they don't care about cornering at high speed. Some of you guys are silly.

Actually, there are quite a few of us. Just look at the X5 sales numbers. yes sure, some of them buy it for the brand and/or prestige, but there are those, me included, that enjoy having a sedan like performance in a high riding SUV. My X5 diesel develops almost 350 hp and 500 ft-lbs of torque and with adaptive drive I can take corners faster than your average performance sedan. This thing runs like it's on rails. Add to that that I can tow 7,700 lbs and that my life time average mpg for the past 60,000+ miles is over 25 mpg and you can see why I like my X5. The one thing I wish my X5 would have is more trunk space. There the XC90 clearly excels. However, when I take that curvy highway exit accelerating effortlessly up to highway speed listening to the rumble of the I6 diesel, I get a smile on my face that I never get with our XC90. Priceless!

BrianV
03-31-2015, 10:52 PM
and with adaptive drive I can take corners faster than your average performance sedan. This thing runs like it's on rails.

My X5 35d also had adaptive drive, I can attest to the uncanny handling from such a large vehicle. I truly miss that...

VolvoFaRmeR
03-31-2015, 11:21 PM
The pure perception is that I6, 0-60 in 5.9 seconds and 27 mpg hwy is better than I4, 0-60 in ~7 seconds and 25 mpg hwy

She said, well the BMW sounds better.

You might wanna check your facts...... 0-60 is 6.1 seconds for your Volvo. If .2 seconds is a dealer breaker, by all means get the BMW.... good grief. That's such a close time it's meaningless in the real world. And you still are comparing a 5 seat vehicle to 7 seat vehicle....seems like apples to oranges. Show me a full sized BWM that seats 7 adults that gets mpg the same as the Volvo and we can talk. Oh wait, they don't make one. Considering a huge % of the XC90 buyers are doing it for the 7 seats who cars what the BMW does. Apples and oranges for most of us. No one still wants to mention the Q7 has a 4 cylinder, as if Volvo is the only one making such a bold move?

I'm so over the MPG talk any more. As if 1 or 2 mpg makes some meaningful difference to ANY buyer of these cars at this price point.

whizkid
04-01-2015, 01:25 AM
You might wanna check your facts...... 0-60 is 6.1 seconds for your Volvo. If .2 seconds is a dealer breaker, by all means get the BMW.... good grief. That's such a close time it's meaningless in the real world. And you still are comparing a 5 seat vehicle to 7 seat vehicle....seems like apples to oranges. Show me a full sized BWM that seats 7 adults that gets mpg the same as the Volvo and we can talk. Oh wait, they don't make one. Considering a huge % of the XC90 buyers are doing it for the 7 seats who cars what the BMW does. Apples and oranges for most of us. No one still wants to mention the Q7 has a 4 cylinder, as if Volvo is the only one making such a bold move?

I'm so over the MPG talk any more. As if 1 or 2 mpg makes some meaningful difference to ANY buyer of these cars at this price point.

For many, that 1 or 2 MPG gives a "warm and fuzzy" feeling and is very subjective.

The wife and I last year replaced a well worn Honda Odyssey mini-van with a loaded 2014 Nissan Rogue SL (AWD). We've had mini-vans (sometimes two) since 1991 with our family. Now that the kids are all grown up, we downsized our vehicle. I've yet to get the combined MPG (car has the CVT transmission) and still haven't achieved the EPA rated highway MPG, even with mild hypermiling and using 100% gas/M1 engine oil. The truth is that for many/most 2014+ cars, real-world mileage seems to always be "less" than the EPA rating. Sometimes by quite a lot. :(

IMHO: In the end, what is the owner's driving experience and how do they feel about it - that's the real question. Specsmanship never satisfies.

adp
04-01-2015, 02:33 AM
Actually, there are quite a few of us. Just look at the X5 sales numbers. yes sure, some of them buy it for the brand and/or prestige, but there are those, me included, that enjoy having a sedan like performance in a high riding SUV. My X5 diesel develops almost 350 hp and 500 ft-lbs of torque and with adaptive drive I can take corners faster than your average performance sedan. This thing runs like it's on rails. Add to that that I can tow 7,700 lbs and that my life time average mpg for the past 60,000+ miles is over 25 mpg and you can see why I like my X5. The one thing I wish my X5 would have is more trunk space. There the XC90 clearly excels. However, when I take that curvy highway exit accelerating effortlessly up to highway speed listening to the rumble of the I6 diesel, I get a smile on my face that I never get with our XC90. Priceless!

I am glad that you like your X5. People getting enjoyment out of their vehicle is cool.

I've never understood the value of the X5. It does not drive as well as a performance sedan of the same price. It has very little "utility" as its cargo space is useless for a family of four, or even going camping with just two people. It's always seemed like a stupid proposition. I guess it gives you a little better clearance, which is useful for trips to the snow.

And it's not as nice looking as a sedan of the same price. I just don't get it.

But I think you CAN tow a bigger camper than the xc90 can tow, so that is a bit of nice utility.

I'd more compare the XC60 to the X5, no? That towing capacity does make for an odd comparo, I admit.

volvocu
04-01-2015, 03:45 AM
If I did not need 7 seats then the X5 with its brilliant 6 cyl engine would sound enticing rather than the gruff sounding 4 cyl Volvo is offering. Had the Volvo demolished the X5 with its fuel efficiency then I would have given thought to the XC90 all other aspects of the cars being equal/similar.

I now better understand that volvo's primary motivation was to have a streamlined production by reducing complexities of having several engine blocks, which makes a lot of sense given that the new Drive-e engines are not half bad, but it is dissapointing to see that they missed the boat on the efficiency front...

VolvoFaRmeR
04-01-2015, 09:45 AM
Not sure a 250 horsepower sedan that easily achieves 37 mpg while on the highway and has a 0-60 in the low sixes is a "miss" on the efficiency front. I routinely get over 30 mph with my S60 AWD, well above the sticker. I'd wait to see real world numbers from the XC90. The EPA is frequently grossly off both ways. With Volvo's "hype" I have a feeling the car will do better than these numbers. I don't think they just laid out false hopes with no internal test numbers to back it up....

If you want a SUV from Volvo that seats 5 it's called the XC60....a much more similar match to the X5.

volvocu
04-01-2015, 10:37 AM
Not sure a 250 horsepower sedan that easily achieves 37 mpg while on the highway and has a 0-60 in the low sixes is a "miss" on the efficiency front. I routinely get over 30 mph with my S60 AWD, well above the sticker. I'd wait to see real world numbers from the XC90. The EPA is frequently grossly off both ways. With Volvo's "hype" I have a feeling the car will do better than these numbers. I don't think they just laid out false hopes with no internal test numbers to back it up....

If you want a SUV from Volvo that seats 5 it's called the XC60....a much more similar match to the X5.

The X3 is XC60's "match", dont let your affinity to the brand blind you

12Ounce
04-01-2015, 11:55 AM
...... When it comes to utility and overall space, the XC90 wins hands down. Therefore, how does the BMW sound better? .....:confused:
.
This would be my personal short-list:
. A smoother, proven six cylinder engine./ More engine options/ More model options.
. An AWD system based on mechanical third differential.
. Proven double wish-bone front suspension.
. (Expected) higher resale value ... therefore lower cost per mile ownership (expected).
. "Evolution" vs "Revolution" ... German Engineering vs Swedish Styling.
.
..... My list may be modified in the future as I become more familiar with the new models. For now, it is my "guess list".

pattyweb
04-01-2015, 01:01 PM
This would be my personal short-list:
. A smoother, proven six cylinder engine./ More engine options/ More model options.


I too would have liked to see a simple smooth 6 cylinder at least for the XC90. LOTS of us have.

The AWD Durango 6cyl is rated for 17/24 on REGULAR, weights 700lbs more than the XC90 and also can tow a lot more. 0-60 in 7.9. I would be happier if it could hit 60 in 7.0-7.5, for an suv, I think that's enough. It's 6cyl isn't the smoothest or best, but at least the specs are nice.

With start/stop and cyl deactivation (which I don't believe the durango has), I could potentially guess an 18/26 rating. With RWD only (which I would choose), maybe even a 19/28 rating, again, on REGULAR gas.

Who knows what other possibilities could have existed if Volvo had left itself open to 6 cyl options. I'd like to think that if CJD can pull it off, Volvo could have pulled it off even better.

If something happened to our Hemi Durango today, the XC90 is 2nd on my list to replace it, but realistically I just can't choose another XC90 because it can't tow enough.

VolvoFaRmeR
04-01-2015, 01:27 PM
With start/stop and cyl deactivation (which I don't believe the durango has), I could potentially guess an 18/26 rating. With RWD only (which I would choose), maybe even a 19/28 rating, again, on REGULAR gas.

Yeah my friend has a 2wd Durango, and it doesn't get anywhere near your "potential" EPA numbers. Not even close.

VolvoFaRmeR
04-01-2015, 01:29 PM
The X3 is XC60's "match", dont let your affinity to the brand blind you


Tell me exactly again why it's not a similar to the X5? Better yet, try and explain the differences between the X3 and the X5. If it comes to interior dimensions that's the weakest argument ever....because the XC90 has more space than an X5. BMW doesn't make anything like the XC90. They will soon....and I bet it comes with a 4cylinder.

adp
04-01-2015, 01:54 PM
The X3 is XC60's "match", dont let your affinity to the brand blind you

the match is whichever has the closest cargo capacity. I think the X3 is much smaller than the XC60, no?

pattyweb
04-01-2015, 02:13 PM
Yeah my friend has a 2wd Durango, and it doesn't get anywhere near your "potential" EPA numbers. Not even close.

You are in such a rush to put posts down that you don't understand what you read.

My "potential" numbers are for a "theoretical" engine that doesn't even exist, so of course your 'friend' isn't getting anywhere near them. The 2WD (which doesn't have start/stop or cylinder deactivation from everything I've found) is rated for 18/25. I'm sure now you'll tell us he's not even getting that. I don't care. There are DriveE owners not hitting the epa numbers either. There's no point in comparing what random 'friends' actually get so I will stick with the epa ratings.

12Ounce
04-01-2015, 02:54 PM
So you are driving back home late Sunday night. The weather is bad and you are on a secondary road in the middle of no-where...perhaps out of cell-phone range. Your tire hits a huge nail ... and suddenly even the run-flat tire is no more. Does you car have a spare wheel/tire? No! So if you can find a tow-truck willing to come find you ... can you find a new tire? How much will be in expended fuel, time, and money ... to get you going again? I know this scenario (no spare) makes "green-sense" to the left-wingers, but I find it short-sighted.
.
Does the new XC90 have the spare as an option? Does the new X5? The Q7? .... this would be a game changer for me.

pattyweb
04-01-2015, 03:07 PM
Does the new XC90 have the spare as an option?

The T6 XC90 does have a spare. I think it's mandated by law.

Paradox
04-01-2015, 03:09 PM
The T6 XC90 does have a spare. I think it's mandated by law.

T6 will, T8 will not.

Adrian-C30R
04-01-2015, 03:21 PM
.
This would be my personal short-list:
. A smoother, proven six cylinder engine./ More engine options/ More model options.
. An AWD system based on mechanical third differential.
. Proven double wish-bone front suspension.
. (Expected) higher resale value ... therefore lower cost per mile ownership (expected).
. "Evolution" vs "Revolution" ... German Engineering vs Swedish Styling.
.
..... My list may be modified in the future as I become more familiar with the new models. For now, it is my "guess list".

-So the lack of BMW coming up with a new engine (which has had many oil problems with its one turbocharger) is what you call a "proven" engine"? I see.
-There are many, many, many videos of BMWs doing poorly off-road (over many generations of xDrive, mind you), and many videos proving how effective Haldex is Somehow you still see a benefit in xDrive.... I see...
-How does the fact that Volvo and BMW both utilize double wishbone suspension give favor to the X5? O.o When you say "proven", don't you actually mean "older"?
-As far as resale value goes, well, can't really argue there. BMW's badge does a lot for it.
-Styling is the new X5's forte? Ugh. Maybe it's just me, but the previous versions were so, SO much better looking than this awkward mini-van look-alike. Kia's own minivan looks miles better IMHO.....

Adrian-C30R
04-01-2015, 03:27 PM
the match is whichever has the closest cargo capacity. I think the X3 is much smaller than the XC60, no?

The older ones were a bit smaller. But the redesigned model puts the X3 at exactly where the XC60 is aiming. IMO, the X5 much more closely competes with the XC90 even though the X5 is smaller since the X5 has always been sportier but had similar space in the first two rows as the XC90 did. Clearly the XC90 isn't the hot-rod of the mid-size luxury category since there are 570HP Porsche Cayenne Turbo S/BMW X5M/X6M models taking up that end. But the XC90 is hardly a slouch. In a straight line it's faster than many hot hatches and cheaper sports cars!

12Ounce
04-01-2015, 03:43 PM
Glad you understand my view. Yes, I will take a second generation of any engine over one fresh-out-the-design-teams'-imagination. Yes, videos are wonderful ...great entertainment ... if you like them, be sure to view the BMW marketing videos. I will take a RWD-based AWD system over a FWD-based system any day. I've heard too many trans-axle PTO "bevel drive" horror stories to trust other wise. Volvo is just now using the double wish-bone ... some call that "Volvo leaping ahead of the competition", somehow I see it as "catching up". And I'm sure we can count on whatever that is under the Volvo's rear to be trouble-free.
.
I will agree the BMW is no beauty. But a Volvo on a tow-truck is no pretty sight either.

volvocu
04-01-2015, 03:44 PM
the match is whichever has the closest cargo capacity. I think the X3 is much smaller than the XC60, no?

NO, check it out for yourself...

Adrian-C30R
04-01-2015, 03:47 PM
Glad you understand my view. Yes, I will take a second generation of any engine over one fresh-out-the-design-teams'-imagination. Yes, videos are wonderful ...great entertainment ... if you like them, be sure to view the BMW marketing videos. I will take a RWD-based AWD system over a FWD-based system any day. I've heard too many trans-axle PTO "bevel drive" horror stories to trust other wise. Volvo is just now using the double wish-bone ... some call that "Volvo leaping ahead of the competition", somehow I see it as "catching up". And I'm sure we can count on whatever that is under the Volvo's rear to be trouble-free.
.
I will agree the BMW is no beauty. But a Volvo on a tow-truck is no pretty sight either.

Essentially, what your logic is that you adore spec sheets instead of actual implementation. And, apparently, useless hypothetical situations. As IF there has never been a BMW broken down who has needed to be towed.....:facepalm:

adp
04-01-2015, 04:00 PM
The older ones were a bit smaller. But the redesigned model puts the X3 at exactly where the XC60 is aiming. IMO, the X5 much more closely competes with the XC90 even though the X5 is smaller since the X5 has always been sportier but had similar space in the first two rows as the XC90 did.

I meant "cargo capacity" - I don't care that much about leg room/shoulder room/hip room in these vehicles as I almost always have plenty of room. It's rare (impossible?) that even the smallest "SUV" would be too small for someone 6 feet tall and 200 pounds.

I have not compared the cargo capacity of the xc60 versus the x3 or x5, so I was guessing

adp
04-01-2015, 04:04 PM
NO, check it out for yourself...

thanks
xc60<xc70<x5<xc90 (cargo capacity)

Teflon
04-01-2015, 06:51 PM
I would wait for the fueleconomy.gov mpg ratings. On the German Volvo website XC90 is rated at 9.6l city, 6.6l hwy while bmw.de rates the x5 with a 3.0l engine at 11.2l city, 6.9l hwy. fueleconomy.gov rates bmw x5 xdrive 3.0 at 13.1l (18mpg) city, 8.7l (27mpg) hwy. I would expect the xc90 at least match the x5 hwy mileage.

Paradox
04-01-2015, 07:21 PM
I would wait for the fueleconomy.gov mpg ratings. On the German Volvo website XC90 is rated at 9.6l city, 6.6l hwy while bmw.de rates the x5 with a 3.0l engine at 11.2l city, 6.9l hwy. fueleconomy.gov rates bmw x5 xdrive 3.0 at 13.1l (18mpg) city, 8.7l (27mpg) hwy. I would expect the xc90 at least match the x5 hwy mileage.

I've been checking there as well as Volvo's website nearly every day so once they're listed there I'll add them into this thread. I've actually been waiting...

Btw, the flyvolvo.com osd site calls those numbers the official epa numbers: http://www.flyvolvo.com/allnewXC90specifications.htm

12Ounce
04-01-2015, 10:09 PM
Essentially, what your logic is that you adore spec sheets instead of actual implementation. And, apparently, useless hypothetical situations. As IF there has never been a BMW broken down who has needed to be towed.....:facepalm:
.
I appreciate the kind words. I have had three tow truck events with our 2010 XC60. All under warranty, but each a nuisance. I'm sure others have had different, more satisfying experiences. Other than two motorcycles, its been a few years since I've owned a BMW. Of the three, I think I trust the Audi most at the moment. But its a work in progress ... I'll wait for more information.
.
http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2015-vehicle-dependability-study

volvocu
04-02-2015, 07:43 AM
thanks
xc60<xc70<x5<xc90 (cargo capacity)

The discussion was X3 vs XC60, I guess you are too stubborn to understand...

adp
04-02-2015, 01:03 PM
The discussion was X3 vs XC60, I guess you are too stubborn to understand...

no, didn't mean it to sound that way

Just forgot to insert that info

x3=xc60<x5<xc70<xc90 (cargo capacity)

(I'm dealing with a cough and the related medicinal haze)

Also, I thought the discussion was about the XC90....

dude174
04-02-2015, 03:00 PM
It's confusing as to why this is so hard to understand.....

1. The competitors at least OFFER a 6 cyl, diesel, V8, etc alternate powertrain. Isn't the T6 the upgrade from the future T5? This is the alternate engine (not including the T8 which I would think competes with competitors top engines).

2. The tradeoff of having a 4 cylinder engine is the supposed fuel mileage increase it brings, otherwise whats the point? Nobody is saying its "all about fuel mileage", simply thats the tradeoff. Otherwise stuff a V12 in the thing

3. "Yeah but the x,Q,Porsche,VW, etc doesn't do 7 passenger (or not as well)". Well the XC90 doesn't do 7 passenger thing near as well as Tahoe,Expedition, Sequoia, Armada, etc. And to Point 2 above, if you don't think fuel mileage is important, why not get the big one?

4. Nobody wants performance SUV's. While I agree they seem silly, SRT, BMW M, AMG, Porsche, etc would probably disagree. I mean why would you buy a X6 or X4 when the X5 and X3 is much better from utility perspective? Because people like what they like and you know what, if its their money they are spending, then its ok.

goVolvo
04-02-2015, 03:45 PM
It's confusing as to why this is so hard to understand.....

1. The competitors at least OFFER a 6 cyl, diesel, V8, etc alternate powertrain. Isn't the T6 the upgrade from the future T5? This is the alternate engine (not including the T8 which I would think competes with competitors top engines).

2. The tradeoff of having a 4 cylinder engine is the supposed fuel mileage increase it brings, otherwise whats the point? Nobody is saying its "all about fuel mileage", simply thats the tradeoff. Otherwise stuff a V12 in the thing

3. "Yeah but the x,Q,Porsche,VW, etc doesn't do 7 passenger (or not as well)". Well the XC90 doesn't do 7 passenger thing near as well as Tahoe,Expedition, Sequoia, Armada, etc. And to Point 2 above, if you don't think fuel mileage is important, why not get the big one?

4. Nobody wants performance SUV's. While I agree they seem silly, SRT, BMW M, AMG, Porsche, etc would probably disagree. I mean why would you buy a X6 or X4 when the X5 and X3 is much better from utility perspective? Because people like what they like and you know what, if its their money they are spending, then its ok.

Unfortunately people like to use words like "anyone", "nobody", which actually means "many", or "at least some".

adp
04-02-2015, 04:33 PM
4. Nobody wants performance SUV's. While I agree they seem silly, SRT, BMW M, AMG, Porsche, etc would probably disagree. I mean why would you buy a X6 or X4 when the X5 and X3 is much better from utility perspective? Because people like what they like and you know what, if its their money they are spending, then its ok.

I don't think anyone said, "nobody wants performance SUVs"

forkster
04-02-2015, 05:27 PM
I don't think anyone said, "nobody wants performance SUVs"...

Sometimes performance doesn't mean "I want to go and accelerate fast" - it also means it can haul a faimly load easily. I'm 6'2" at 220lbs. Wife is 6' at 180lbs. My two sons while still smaller, both weigh 150lbs combined (for now). In a couple years, we will be weighing 800lbs+ - just the family weight. I don't think a small fourbanger can haul my family of taller bavarians around. And it better be able to merge into heavy traffic with ease.

Performance therefore is a must for all luxury family SUV's. The XC90 is designed as such and it better haul arse especially with the price-point they're asking. Fuel economy also better be a suggestion for Sunday driving cause I don't drive like a granny. :D

geokilla
04-02-2015, 08:22 PM
So industry leading numbers eh? This is why the Driv-E lineup needs to be expanded to include 6 cylinders. I hope this serves as a wake up call that 4 cylinders does not work in certain applications. The blind Volvo love in this forum is amusing. I question why I still post here.


Edit: The EPA has the 2016 MDX AWD numbers above and they are lower than the 2015 you posted above.

2016 Acura MDX AWD (18/26)

EPA doesn't allow the use of 7th and 8th gear during their testing because the speeds weren't high enough for overdrive to kick in. Shorter gear ratios didn't help the city MPA rating either. However in real world driving, a lot of people are saying it helps.

BrianV
04-03-2015, 04:03 PM
It's confusing as to why this is so hard to understand.....

1. The competitors at least OFFER a 6 cyl, diesel, V8, etc alternate powertrain. Isn't the T6 the upgrade from the future T5? This is the alternate engine (not including the T8 which I would think competes with competitors top engines).

2. The tradeoff of having a 4 cylinder engine is the supposed fuel mileage increase it brings, otherwise whats the point? Nobody is saying its "all about fuel mileage", simply thats the tradeoff. Otherwise stuff a V12 in the thing

3. "Yeah but the x,Q,Porsche,VW, etc doesn't do 7 passenger (or not as well)". Well the XC90 doesn't do 7 passenger thing near as well as Tahoe,Expedition, Sequoia, Armada, etc. And to Point 2 above, if you don't think fuel mileage is important, why not get the big one?


Nailed it!!!

Linqid
04-03-2015, 05:25 PM
I don't think a small fourbanger can haul my family of taller bavarians around. And it better be able to merge into heavy traffic with ease.

I have seen this concern before (not just on this forum) when I visit US forums. As a European I find this interesting. Let's take Sweden as an example. The V70 is the most sold car here for the last 20 years or so. The most common engines choices trough out the years have been 2.4-litre I5 (140 hp), 2.0-litre I4 (145 hp) and the 1.6-litre 4-cyl diesel (109/115 hp). Despite the lack of power we still manage to drive all the way to the ski resort and back with wife and three kids in the car without problems. To even think that 320 hp isn't enough to drive you and your kids around is to me a bit silly (no offence).

goVolvo
04-03-2015, 06:19 PM
Nailed it!!!

Not really. People buy XC90 instead of Tahoe because Tahoe is too big, not pretty. Not mostly about mpg is only 22 highway not even 25.

F150 has pretty good mpg and sells very good. But F150 and XC90 buyers are simply different groups of people.

The thing people cannot get over with here is:

- 6cyl is so popular, must be something superior than 4.

- "Trust me, after driving 6cyl and 4 cyl for so many years, 6 cyl is much smoother than 4."

- 4cyl saves gas? Oh no, the number does not show it.

- So, what's the good of 4cyl. :)

Shopaholic
04-03-2015, 08:15 PM
Despite the lack of power we still manage to drive all the way to the ski resort and back with wife and three kids in the car without problems. To even think that 320 hp isn't enough to drive you and your
kids around is to me a bit silly (no offence).

The mountain passes and the speeds are different from Sweden. Going up 7000/9000 foot elevation Sierra passes at 70+mph for the most part, you need some real power. Only way to tell is after I drive it here and keeping my fingers crossed😎

BrianV
04-03-2015, 10:39 PM
Not really. People buy XC90 instead of Tahoe because Tahoe is too big, not pretty. Not mostly about mpg is only 22 highway not even 25.

Time to crawl out from under the rock.... I'm not even sure why you brought up the Tahoe, but I'll bite the hook.

The Tahoe handily outsells the XC90. It may be uglier (subjective), it may get worse gas mileage (objective), it may be bigger (objective), etc. Additionally, the Tahoe has little market outside of North America, yet in entirely one country, it has handily outsold the entirety of Volvo's XC90 global sales. Clearly the Tahoe has a formula that works (objective fact). Perhaps it doesn't work as well outside of the US, but it works so well in the US that overall it trumps the XC90 on the global stage. It's not even worth comparing these vehicles...

I guess V8 + Size = Successful formula.....

I'm not necessarily a Tahoe fan, but you called it out and I didn't bring Tahoe up in any relevant context (except for several posts ago as a likely more fitting true 7-pax SUV for those who are really shopping for 7 seats).

Fact check:
US/Canadian Tahoe sales:
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/chevrolet-tahoe-sales-figures.html
Summary: In North America (almost entirely US), Chevy has sold 1.65 million Tahoes from 2002-2014

Worldwide XC90 Sales:
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/08/27/2015-volvo-xc90-deep-dive-live-reveal-official/
Summary: Volvo has produced "over 600,000" XC90 units in total (lifetime) across the entire planet. XC90 came out as MY2003 in 2002, so safe to assume 2002-2014.

Clearly some Tahoes were sold in Mexico and other countries which aren't even part of the above metrics.

Conclusion = 1.65M + Worldwide Tahoe sales > 600,000+ worldwide XC90 sales. If you want icing on the cake, please consider that the figures above exclude the identical GMC Yukon and derivative Denali and Escalades.

Regardless, I don't think there is a huge cross-shop of Tahoe vs XC90. I would safely say more people cross-shop the X5/MDX/ML/GX/QX60 and XC90 than Tahoe and XC90. The post to which I said "nailed it" did mention that true 7-seat shoppers would be more inclined to look at Tahoes/Sequoias/Armadas/etc. I fully agree with that. The XC90 is a "in the pinch" three row seater, much as the MDX and X5 is.

In reviewing this, I have no idea what your point was....

Happy Friday...

BrianV
04-03-2015, 10:50 PM
- 6cyl is so popular, must be something superior than 4.

- "Trust me, after driving 6cyl and 4 cyl for so many years, 6 cyl is much smoother than 4."

- 4cyl saves gas? Oh no, the number does not show it.

- So, what's the good of 4cyl. :)

- If 6cyl makes the power and gets better mpg than 4 cyl, then consensus opinion is it is better.

- History and consensus opinion states 6 cylinder is smoother than 4 cylinder

- 4cylinder is superior than 6 due to cost and MPG. When 4 cylinder costs more and provides less MPG, then some would say, "EPIC FAIL"

- So what is the good of 4cyl when competition is producing more frugal 6 cyl?

I agree with you on all of that!!!! That is essentially the problem we face.

I love Volvo, the safety, the exterior and interior styling of the new XC90, I just wish the powertrain (or powertrain options) was more competitive. I'm fearful of the T8 as it's an unproven configuration and fairly exotic from a drivetrain management standpoint (so I'm focusing on T6 as a candidate for our next car).

goVolvo
04-03-2015, 11:25 PM
Compare Drive E T6 and I6 turbo on XC60, I think Drive-E is good enough to replace I6 turbo in power and smoothness, and is cheaper.
The slight better mpg difference I can ignore.

If there were I6 turbo on new XC90 and is $2k more I'll still pick Drive-E for sure. Though it makes sense for Volvo to offer 6cyl turbo option to sell more cars to more people. I don't think 6cyl is superior technically. And I do not need the HP of a 6cyl twin turbo, neither the 450HP drive-E.

IIHS
04-03-2015, 11:35 PM
I have seen this concern before (not just on this forum) when I visit US forums. As a European I find this interesting. Let's take Sweden as an example. The V70 is the most sold car here for the last 20 years or so. The most common engines choices trough out the years have been 2.4-litre I5 (140 hp), 2.0-litre I4 (145 hp) and the 1.6-litre 4-cyl diesel (109/115 hp). Despite the lack of power we still manage to drive all the way to the ski resort and back with wife and three kids in the car without problems. To even think that 320 hp isn't enough to drive you and your kids around is to me a bit silly (no offence).

Fuel is very cheap in the US and we don't pay additional taxes based on the weight, seating capacities, fuel type, or vehicle classes driven here. As a result, manufacturers equate horsepower, size, and speed with masculinity, which leads to people believing they can't tow, drive, or do much of anything if they don't have giant beasts of vehicles.

Linqid
04-04-2015, 06:34 AM
The mountain passes and the speeds are different from Sweden. Going up 7000/9000 foot elevation Sierra passes at 70+mph for the most part, you need some real power. Only way to tell is after I drive it here and keeping my fingers crossed😎

I drove up the Grossglückner (highest altitude reacheble by car 8 200 ft) in a fully loaded (4 passengers + cargo) Saab 9-5 with 150 hp ten years ago. It worked just fine. To believe it would be a problem to do such a thing in a new gen XC90 with 320 hp simply because it's a 4-cyl is nothing but silly. :)

Linqid
04-04-2015, 06:42 AM
Fuel is very cheap in the US and we don't pay additional taxes based on the weight, seating capacities, fuel type, or vehicle classes driven here. As a result, manufacturers equate horsepower, size, and speed with masculinity, which leads to people believing they can't tow, drive, or do much of anything if they don't have giant beasts of vehicles.

I believe we have a winner. ;)

Oh, and don't get me wrong here, I'm not here to criticise the fact that you "need" +300 hp to haul your family around. I'm jealous of all of you. I would also like to drive a V8 but pay for a 4-cyl. Consider yourself lucky.

9Volvos
04-04-2015, 09:03 AM
If these numbers are true, HUGE disappointment! After all the hype, class leading mpg etc, this? These numbers makes me think that what was the Volvo management smoking when they decided to put a 4-cylinder engine in a heavy SUV? I bet BMW and Audi are laughing right now.

VolvoFarmer, to compare the mpg of the new XC90 to the old 3.2 liter XC90 and say "look, what an improvement!" is a bit laughable. I understand you're trying to put a positive spin on this, but come on. This engine was supposed to give superior mpg against the competition and redefine Volvo's future. With these mpg numbers, the XC90 does not stand out from the crowd and actually stands behind some of it's competitors.

Perhaps you can tell I am disappointed. I truly hope these numbers are not true. I was so hopeful that Volvo would have come out with an engine formula that would help redefine the future for car engines and save the Volvo brand. Now I have my doubts. End of rant, time for my morning coffee.

I think this is the best analysis I have read. It is not what Volvo implied in the pre-release stage. The larger issue is how many other things will fall short of the hype in real world conditions. I do have a FE option to buy, but this makes me even more cautious than I was about buying the first model year of any car. Volvo has made a lot of other promises they have not kept ad it makes me nervous that this is just the way they are.

goVolvo
04-04-2015, 01:17 PM
Fuel is very cheap in the US and we don't pay additional taxes based on the weight, seating capacities, fuel type, or vehicle classes driven here. As a result, manufacturers equate horsepower, size, and speed with masculinity, which leads to people believing they can't tow, drive, or do much of anything if they don't have giant beasts of vehicles.

Yes US is heaven for drivers. I think Volvo has to sell much more cars here to consider something unique in US. Current sale number is only 56k a year. So if they had a 6cyl XC90/60, probably only 10k 6cyl cars will be sold. This is far from enough to support an engine R&D and production line. If in the future, new SPA car sale reaches 100k a year, maybe 20k 6cyl cars can be a stronger demand for a 6cyl engine option.

Another way is to share the 6cyl engine with other car makers. Geely still has a 6cyl engine option on their GC9 but 6cyl is also not popular in China due to tax reason. American car makes also share some of their platform to gain the volume advantage. If Volvo can find a American 6cyl engine to use it could be a good option but it is even harder now than the days with Ford.

cab
04-04-2015, 02:46 PM
A couple of years ago I started researching some sedan options and began looking on sites like fuelly.com to see what owners were getting in term of "real world" mileage figures. I looked at ton of cars, and I was a bit shocked. Here's what I learned: most stuff ends up the low 20s, and only the "hybrids" got really good numbers. Basically, all the gas engine tech in the world doesn't seem to offset the hybrid model of basically "turning off the engine" as much of the time as humanly possible (which explains why stop/start tech is on everything new now).

Having said that, let's look at the T8 plug-in hybrid. You get a big jump in power when you want/need it and a RWD boost at that. If your daily commute is short (under 20 miles), you may use little to no gas during that time. Let that sink in for a moment. You still have a vehicle capable of making longer trips in comfort, with a lot of utility and power, BUT for the everyday boring commute...you reduce your gas usage by anywhere from 25-100% depending on the length of your commute. This is why it is hard to compare traditional mileage numbers against plug-in hybrids. Your daily driving pattern can DRAMATICALLY alter your fuel usage.

As my sig shows, I have a Chevy Volt plug-in (gas engine and electric motor/battery). I have 30,868 miles on it, but the gas engine was running for only 6403 of those miles...for 24,465 miles the engine was OFF! Heck, even when the battery runs out it acts like a traditional hybrid in that the engine turns off when I come to a stop. Yes, the gas savings are tremendous, but there are a ton of other benefits. Electric driving is sublime and ridiculously smooth with instant torque at 0 rpm. I only stop at gas stations every 6 weeks or so...hot weather, cold weather, rainy weather, late to work, etc. - I'm just standing at the pump way less. Regenerative braking means that after 2.5 years of ownership I have almost no brake dust on the wheels. For cars with stop/start tech, they generally start out off the line in pure EV mode eliminating the abrupt "startup" of the engine. It's even "fun" to see how far you can go on a charge believe it or not.

While the T8 won't have the nearly same electric range or full electric capabilities as the Volt, it will likely be a gateway drug to even more capable electrics for those folks that decide to step up to it...and this from a gear head. Personally, we don't need the larger XC90 and am hoping the next gen XC60 gets a T8 version.

Finally, BMW will also be offering the X5 plug-in hybrid with a similar 4-banger plus electric motor model.

BrianV
04-04-2015, 04:11 PM
A couple of years ago I started researching some sedan options and began looking on sites like fuelly.com to see what owners were getting in term of "real world" mileage figures. I looked at ton of cars, and I was a bit shocked. Here's what I learned: most stuff ends up the low 20s, and only the "hybrids" got really good numbers. Basically, all the gas engine tech in the world doesn't seem to offset the hybrid model of basically "turning off the engine" as much of the time as humanly possible (which explains why stop/start tech is on everything new now).

Having said that, let's look at the T8 plug-in hybrid. You get a big jump in power when you want/need it and a RWD boost at that. If your daily commute is short (under 20 miles), you may use little to no gas during that time. Let that sink in for a moment. You still have a vehicle capable of making longer trips in comfort, with a lot of utility and power, BUT for the everyday boring commute...you reduce your gas usage by anywhere from 25-100% depending on the length of your commute. This is why it is hard to compare traditional mileage numbers against plug-in hybrids. Your daily driving pattern can DRAMATICALLY alter your fuel usage.

As my sig shows, I have a Chevy Volt plug-in (gas engine and electric motor/battery). I have 30,868 miles on it, but the gas engine was running for only 6403 of those miles...for 24,465 miles the engine was OFF! Heck, even when the battery runs out it acts like a traditional hybrid in that the engine turns off when I come to a stop. Yes, the gas savings are tremendous, but there are a ton of other benefits. Electric driving is sublime and ridiculously smooth with instant torque at 0 rpm. I only stop at gas stations every 6 weeks or so...hot weather, cold weather, rainy weather, late to work, etc. - I'm just standing at the pump way less. Regenerative braking means that after 2.5 years of ownership I have almost no brake dust on the wheels. For cars with stop/start tech, they generally start out off the line in pure EV mode eliminating the abrupt "startup" of the engine. It's even "fun" to see how far you can go on a charge believe it or not.

While the T8 won't have the nearly same electric range or full electric capabilities as the Volt, it will likely be a gateway drug to even more capable electrics for those folks that decide to step up to it...and this from a gear head. Personally, we don't need the larger XC90 and am hoping the next gen XC60 gets a T8 version.

Finally, BMW will also be offering the X5 plug-in hybrid with a similar 4-banger plus electric motor model.

A few questions.

First, being in Texas you likely have deregulated power and actually can catch a break when using more power (e.g. after 1,000 kWh usage, your monthly rate per kWh goes down.). So clearly charging the car is more effective than gas. However, in other states and Austin, TX which operates a power co-op, I have to pay substantially more per kWh for every 500 kW used. For example:

First 500 kWh is like $0.07 / kWh
501-1000 kWh is like $0.11 / kWh
1001-1500 kWh is like $0.15 / kWh
1501-2000 kWh is like $0.19 / kWh
2001-2500 kWh is like $0.22 / kWh

In the Summer, I average 2,200-2,400 kWh as my house is nearly 3,600 sq ft. I expect it will go up more this Summer now that I work from home. So that could easily push me over 3,000 kWh and into a power usage rate that costs over $0.25 / kWh and since the car is not a necessity, it basically costs me the top most figure. At those higher rates, 500 kWh could cost over $100 / month or roughly 2-3 tanks of gas.

This has really held me back from plug-ins. When I lived in Round Rock, power was at a flat rate and as long as I used more than 1,000 kWh I would get my rate lower to $0.09 / kWh. So very cost effective then.

cab, do you have any estimate on how many kWh you use per month for a specific amount of miles?

Also, on the T8 specifically, this review https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CDuxMjonIK4#t=75 was a bit critical of the T8 saying the transitions were noticeable. He was positive on the gas engine being smooth and linear with no detectable feeling of supercharger or turbocharger working. It seems hard for me to imagine to completely separate drivetrains, one with transmission andone without really working in pure harmony. I also wonder how the different modes are, for example if you are in Electric only mode and floor it, does it pop you out of that mode and apply engine (and vice-versa). If you get major wheel slip in either 2WD mode, does it automatically power up the other axle? As I understand there are a handful of modes:

AWD = Both engines
Electric Only = RWD
FWD (Electric Save mode) = FWD
Hybrid = Both systems (not sure how different than AWD, perhaps it can use either where AWD always uses both)
Performance = Some combination for max power, etc.

I just wonder how quick it responds as the T6 AWD system adjusts instantly based on conditions, not guess work required when the road turns to crap or you have to goose it.

Buying a brand new car on a brand new chassis with a brand new powertrain is a bit daunting for me. The added 500 LBS negates to some degree the added horsepower and may impact overall dynamics. I believe the 0-60 difference is only around 1/2 a second so unless the economy/gas savings is TRULY noble and enough to reasonably offset the cost addition, the T8 may not make as much sense. We'll need to wait for more objective numbers and prices to make that, but I'm personally interested in your Volt power cost estimates. I know that previous cars that used hybrid-based AWD (Lexus RX-H, Ford Edge Hybrid, etc.) were all criticized for lackluster off-road and traction performance, something Volvo has historically excelled in.

My wife drives about 3-4 miles each way in entirely neighborhood stop-sign hell. A hybrid makes sense for that, but as it stands now, we drive the car so little that I'm filling it up less than twice per month and with power costing more, I wonder if it really would save money. The miles rack up when we take road trips where the plug-in feature is negated after 15-20 miles.

12Ounce
04-04-2015, 04:21 PM
Glad you are having good luck with the Volt. No control/electric system failures?
.
I may get something similar. Either Chevy or Ford. Nice experiment. The only thing that worries me about the whole concept is .... When is Big Brother gonna realize that he is not only giving breaks on tax dag, He's also not getting gasoline tax to pay for the roads (AND his high living!). So what is next? Additional taxes on electricity/solar panels/methane generators to pay for his need/greed?

cab
04-04-2015, 04:53 PM
A few questions.

First, being in Texas you likely have deregulated power and actually can catch a break when using more power (e.g. after 1,000 kWh usage, your monthly rate per kWh goes down.). So clearly charging the car is more effective than gas. However, in other states and Austin, TX which operates a power co-op, I have to pay substantially more per kWh for every 500 kW used. For example:

First 500 kWh is like $0.07 / kWh
501-1000 kWh is like $0.11 / kWh
1001-1500 kWh is like $0.15 / kWh
1501-2000 kWh is like $0.19 / kWh
2001-2500 kWh is like $0.22 / kWh

In the Summer, I average 2,200-2,400 kWh as my house is nearly 3,600 sq ft. I expect it will go up more this Summer now that I work from home. So that could easily push me over 3,000 kWh and into a power usage rate that costs over $0.25 / kWh and since the car is not a necessity, it basically costs me the top most figure. At those higher rates, 500 kWh could cost over $100 / month or roughly 2-3 tanks of gas.

This has really held me back from plug-ins. When I lived in Round Rock, power was at a flat rate and as long as I used more than 1,000 kWh I would get my rate lower to $0.09 / kWh. So very cost effective then.

cab, do you have any estimate on how many kWh you use per month for a specific amount of miles?

Also, on the T8 specifically, this review https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CDuxMjonIK4#t=75 was a bit critical of the T8 saying the transitions were noticeable. He was positive on the gas engine being smooth and linear with no detectable feeling of supercharger or turbocharger working. It seems hard for me to imagine to completely separate drivetrains, one with transmission andone without really working in pure harmony. I also wonder how the different modes are, for example if you are in Electric only mode and floor it, does it pop you out of that mode and apply engine (and vice-versa). If you get major wheel slip in either 2WD mode, does it automatically power up the other axle? As I understand there are a handful of modes:

AWD = Both engines
Electric Only = RWD
FWD (Electric Save mode) = FWD
Hybrid = Both systems (not sure how different than AWD, perhaps it can use either where AWD always uses both)
Performance = Some combination for max power, etc.

I just wonder how quick it responds as the T6 AWD system adjusts instantly based on conditions, not guess work required when the road turns to crap or you have to goose it.

Buying a brand new car on a brand new chassis with a brand new powertrain is a bit daunting for me. The added 500 LBS negates to some degree the added horsepower and may impact overall dynamics. I believe the 0-60 difference is only around 1/2 a second so unless the economy/gas savings is TRULY noble and enough to reasonably offset the cost addition, the T8 may not make as much sense. We'll need to wait for more objective numbers and prices to make that, but I'm personally interested in your Volt power cost estimates. I know that previous cars that used hybrid-based AWD (Lexus RX-H, Ford Edge Hybrid, etc.) were all criticized for lackluster off-road and traction performance, something Volvo has historically excelled in.

My wife drives about 3-4 miles each way in entirely neighborhood stop-sign hell. A hybrid makes sense for that, but as it stands now, we drive the car so little that I'm filling it up less than twice per month and with power costing more, I wonder if it really would save money. The miles rack up when we take road trips where the plug-in feature is negated after 15-20 miles.

Good questions Brian. My electric rate is either .08 or .09 kWh vs. your "California" style system there in Austin, but regardless, I use about 12.5-13 kWh for a "full charge". I get anywhere from 28-45 miles of battery range per charge depending primarily on outside temperature and secondarily on speed. COLD is the enemy. In DFW, I average probably 35-37 miles on a charge. A friend of mine routinely gets over 50 miles per charge on her Volt, but she drives slower and babies it.

In Austin, I would expect your average to be a bit higher than mine since your Winters are a bit warmer than ours. You can do your own math, but at .25/kWh it would cost me a max of $3.25 to travel between 35 and 37 miles. My actual cost is much lower than yours so for me, it is closer to $1.11. The Volvo's setup is going to be a lot different of course.

You really have to apply your daily driving pattern to figure how much gas vs. electricity you would use, but you get the idea.

I agree on some of the concerns around the new tech from Volvo. The VW GTE (electric plug-in...not the e-Golf) reviews voiced similar concerns regarding the electric/gas switchover not being as seamless as it could be. That's one area where the Volt is different and I should have noted that.

cab
04-04-2015, 05:00 PM
Glad you are having good luck with the Volt. No control/electric system failures?
.
I may get something similar. Either Chevy or Ford. Nice experiment. The only thing that worries me about the whole concept is .... When is Big Brother gonna realize that he is not only giving breaks on tax dag, He's also not getting gasoline tax to pay for the roads (AND his high living!). So what is next? Additional taxes on electricity/solar panels/methane generators to pay for his need/greed?

No drivetrain/battery issues. Honestly, it is the best car I have ever owned. The general consensus on the Volt forums is that GM way overbuilt the first gen Volt to ensure no issues - and it seems to have played out that way. Before I bought, I trolled the Volt forums and the first thing I noticed (coming from BMW and BMW forums) was the comparative lack of issues - LOL!

As to uncle Sam, you are already seeing a few areas passing annual EV taxes (modest stuff like $50/yr), but it is there. The current gas tax system is pretty broken. Ideally, it would be based on vehicle weight and miles driven...nothing more / nothing less. To keep this "Volvo" related", the size of the tax refund is directly tied to the size of the battery in the vehicle so the Volvo refund would be smaller than the Volt due to the smaller pack.

IIHS
04-04-2015, 08:32 PM
Keep in mind, too, when talking about taxes, that in Volvo's home country, there are all kinds of taxes designed to encourage people to choose smaller, fuel efficient vehicles, to drive less often, or to use public transportation and avoid driving entirely, and Volvo still does very, very well there (much better than here, where there aren't really any incentives to drive less, drive efficient vehicles, or drive smaller ones).

VolvoFaRmeR
04-04-2015, 10:18 PM
The XC90 is a "in the pinch" three row seater, much as the MDX and X5 is.

You couldn't be more wrong......I've sat in the 3rd row. It hardly even comparable to the MDX, and the X5 is laughable. I don't care what the numbers say. When you sit in the third row you won't believe the view, the the foot room, the headroom, the visibility, the seat cushion size and the height off the floor. The XC90 is WAY more hospitable than a Tahoe! Forget the specs, take a seat. Many are going to be shocked at the difference from the first gen XC90

goVolvo
04-04-2015, 11:17 PM
Keep in mind, too, when talking about taxes, that in Volvo's home country, there are all kinds of taxes designed to encourage people to choose smaller, fuel efficient vehicles, to drive less often, or to use public transportation and avoid driving entirely, and Volvo still does very, very well there (much better than here, where there aren't really any incentives to drive less, drive efficient vehicles, or drive smaller ones).

In some countries the policy is to encourage small engines and they have more tax on 3.0L cars than 2.0L. The direct result is turbo engine 2.0L or less is very popular and 3.0L is rare.

GrecianVolvo
04-05-2015, 12:25 AM
EPA doesn't allow the use of 7th and 8th gear during their testing because the speeds weren't high enough for overdrive to kick in. Shorter gear ratios didn't help the city MPA rating either. However in real world driving, a lot of people are saying it helps.

You are incorrect. EPA will test cars for "City" (max. speed 56 mph), "Highway" (max. speed 60 mph) and "High speed" (max. speed 80 mph) plus w/ AC (max. speed 54.8 mph) and one test w/ cold engine (max. speed 56 mph). The "City" test is also performed w/ a cold engine. The first three tests are also done for distances anywhere from 8.5 to a little over 10 miles so all gears are utilized.

As far as the first paragraph of your post, yes, industry leading numbers.

I am tired of reading through all the negative posts about this car that is truly ground breaking. 2.0L engine, 316 hp, 8-speed, 0-60 in the high 6 second rage, 20 CITY/ 25 HIGHWAY and 22 COMBINED (which is the REAL number since none of you are taxi drivers nor highway runners) and can tow over 5,000 lbs

BMW X5 xDrive 3.5i
18 CITY / 27 HIGHWAY, 21 COMBINED 300 hp (and, in my opinion, the only formidable opponent of this segment in terms of power, driveability; however, it costs way much more and has a lot less utility than the XC90)

Acura MDX SH-AWD
same as BMW numbers, less HP/torque (290 and 267, respectively). Again, less utility and less mileage than the XC90 and costs more

Mercedes-Benz ML350
18 CITY/24 HWY, 19 COMBINED. 302 HP/272 torque. Less power, higher MSRP

Audi Q7
18 CITY/27 HWY, 21 COMBINED 280 hp and 295 torque less HP and similar torque to XC90), higher MSRP
Audi Q7 TDI
19 CITY/28 HWY, 22 COMBINED, higher MSRP, higher fuel costs, similar fuel mileage even though it is diesel

Jeep Grand Cherokee 3.6L AWD
17 CITY/24 HWY, 19 COMBINED

I can go on and on but it is a fact that this XC90 and its fantastic engine generating from ONLY 2.0L, 316 hp and 290 lbs/ft torque gets 22 MPG combined, tows more than many 6-cyl engines, does not rely on dull CVT transmissions, equals or beats some diesel engines in its competitive segment and also generating better 0-60 sec times except against the X5. All this while providing equal to higher level standard equiment with LOWER MSRP (w/ the exception of the Jeep which cannot even come close to the amount of standard features that the new XC90 has).

GrecianVolvo
04-05-2015, 12:29 AM
You couldn't be more wrong......I've sat in the 3rd row. It hardly even comparable to the MDX, and the X5 is laughable. I don't care what the numbers say. When you sit in the third row you won't believe the view, the the foot room, the headroom, the visibility, the seat cushion size and the height off the floor. The XC90 is WAY more hospitable than a Tahoe! Forget the specs, take a seat. Many are going to be shocked at the difference from the first gen XC90

Apparently, BrianV has not spent any time in the 3rd row of the XC90 and compare it to that of the MDX and the X5...which are true punishment and cannot accommodate a person up to 5'7'' tall, like the XC90 can.

At almost 32" legroom,in the 3rd row, the XC90 has more legroom than the Acura, BMW, Audi or Infiniti.

It also beats all SUVs in its segment in cargo room w/ the 3rd row up except for teh Infiniti QX60 AWD, with which it's tied (15.8 cu ft).

dude174
04-05-2015, 12:55 AM
Man you sunshine pumpers are awesome. The new xc90 is the best ever, made of unobtanium alloy and is the second coming and the Holy Grail all in one 4 wheeled package. Got it.

Interesting that since t6 predictions have proven to be not quite as optimistic as you guys thought, now we are extolling the virtues of combined ratings. How do you know the percentage people drive? If mostly city them t8 is surely better, if mostly highway, this new one hardly betters the 22 mpg I got routinely on my old xc90 v8 with regular unleaded. Additionally, surely you guys will at least admit the city rating is helped considerably by auto stop/start. Does your data provide for how many times people turn it off and for Texas summers when the car won't even allow stop start?

There's a thread in the xc60 section about driveE disappointing mileage and the most recent Motor Trend CUV comparo didn't rate the engine very well either regarding mileage. Maybe it's the software mapping in the transmission, maybe the turbo is kicking in to keep the mass moving at highway speed, I don't know. But 25 mpg hwy in a 4 banger is disappointing. Note, before you come back with how it's the best suv ever, I didn't say the vehicle itself is disappointing. I'd have a T8 in a heartbeat if we could ever get pricing and mileage to really compare.

GrecianVolvo
04-05-2015, 03:32 AM
if mostly highway, this new one hardly betters the 22 mpg I got routinely on my old xc90 v8 with regular unleaded.
You will need to check the FACTS, first; the XC90 V8 has been rated at 13 City and 19 HWY for a combined rating of 15. Sure, w/ most of the XC90 V8s I had as company cars, I also got in the 20s when I was cruising at 75 mph and I am sure with the new XC90 T6 I will get in the 30s when cruising at the same speed, especially with the 8-speed transmission. What's your point? I have also AVERAGED, on a trip to Las Vegas, 36.5 MPG on a V60 T5 Drive-E (HWY rating of 37) but I never came out here to claim that the T5 Drive-E can do better than 37 HWY when I averaged (at 75+ mph) half a mile per gallon less.

These numbers are AVERAGES. Some people will get less, some more. Depending on driving habits, climate conditions, etc.


Additionally, surely you guys will at least admit the city rating is helped considerably by auto stop/start. Does your data provide for how many times people turn it off and for Texas summers when the car won't even allow stop start?

Read above. Plus, the EPA does testing in several different modes (see my answer to Geokilla), including using the A/C and under different modes and speeds. Do you think, for one minute, that only the XC90's fuel economy will suffer in Texas? Or does the "holy grail" apply to every other brand but Volvo? The auto stop function (now employed by the majority of luxury brands) is bypassed when the temp goes above a certain point...

This is from Edmunds.com: "....the EPA rating for combined mpg presumes that we drive 55 percent of the time in the city and 45 percent of the time on the highway. Most people simply assume that's the case in their own driving. But many motorists — especially those in urban regions with lots of traffic congestion — spend far more time driving in city conditions than they do on the open road."


There's a thread in the xc60 section about driveE disappointing mileage

Funny you picked the ONLY thread in the XC60 forum that deals with a few people's experiences vs. many other posts all over SS where people claim the Drive-E engine has given them improved gas mileage. I know, for sure, my monthly fuel bill is reduced by at at least 22% to 27% when I have a company car powered by a Drive-E engine vs. the same model w/ a 6-cyl. engine.


But 25 mpg hwy in a 4 banger is disappointing.

What is disappointing is that you fail to recognize that this car has a GVWR of almost 5,800 lbs...and gets equal or better gas mileage than its competition while generating more HP than any 6-cyl engine in its competitive segment when it has the smallest displacement.

Note, before you come back with how it's the best suv ever

It is not. It is a car that has a lot of attributes and bests its competition in several areas, as expected. It has its limitations like every model out there. No car/truck is the best in everything. You are very presumptuous.


I'd have a T8 in a heartbeat if we could ever get pricing and mileage to really compare.

You will, soon. The T8 is not due until the end of the year but, soon, you will get the info you are looking for.

By the way, other than my monthly fuel bill statement (for which I have real numbers to back up my claim but not going to post here), I am stating HARD FACTS and real numbers; your post is very presumptuous, sarcastic and has nothing but anecdotal info or personal opinions.

dude174
04-05-2015, 04:30 AM
If course my post was presumptuous and sarcastic, it's a car enthusiast forum not curing brain cancer! Aren't we a bunch of guys and gals sitting around discussing cars. The reason for my sarcasmis people (and this is most definitely not exclusive to this one) are so defensive about a car none of us has lived with for any long period and most havent even seen in the flesh. The butthurt on here is just different - I don't get why some of you can't just say well perhaps Volvo no longer makes a vehicle for you that makes sense. Do you know how many people get on rennlist and 6speedonline and say why shouldnt I get a stingray rather than a 911S that has same performance numbers at half the price? Or m3post where the mustang gt is compared similary to m3? It's a car forum where people discuss cars they like! I realize the 4 cyl only strategy is a Volvo thing, just like BMW is turbo only - u think people on here are bad about questioning a manufacturer direction geez you shoulda seen the outcry over the new turbo m3!!

If you are right and the T6 version arrives and gets routinely average above 25ish on the highway - I mean for people like me who do 75/25 hwy/city not a single road trip - then I'll be the first to admit the T6 is a positive surprise. And no Volvo isn't the only one to use stop start for city epa - my only statement to its use was you are touting combined mileage which includes that. I personally never use it as it's annoying and (in my personal opinion, not stating fact) increases starter wear for a few "political" mpg's. As a previous shopper of the T6, I only compared the hwy mileage to its competition.

The driveE engine would be great in a 4c type Volvo!! Lest you think I'm only about cylinder count ��

V60_PHEV
04-05-2015, 05:47 AM
It seems hard for me to imagine to completely separate drivetrains, one with transmission andone without really working in pure harmony.

What this forum needs is some first hand experience ;)
I drive a Volvo V60 Plug-In Hybrid daily and the transitions between electric and ICE are very fluid with normal driving. (something I believe most car journalists are not accustomed with)
The only thing that gives me some doubts about the harmony is the great tire wear I am experiencing.
Could be the weight of the car, could be the torque, or perhaps the transitions between the two engines.
Apart from the tire wear I am enjoying this car very much.

I share the concerns about the completely new ICE engines and platform, but Volvo has the know-how and experience to build a good plug-in hybrid.
My fuel consumption has gone way down while the V60 Plug-In has a rather obsolete diesel and gearbox.
Can't really say anything about the T8 of course, but I have had enough faith to put an order down.

finnvolvo
04-05-2015, 07:51 AM
As far as the first paragraph of your post, yes, industry leading numbers.

I am tired of reading through all the negative posts about this car that is truly ground breaking. 2.0L engine, 316 hp, 8-speed, 0-60 in the high 6 second rage, 20 CITY/ 25 HIGHWAY and 22 COMBINED (which is the REAL number since none of you are taxi drivers nor highway runners) and can tow over 5,000 lbs

BMW X5 xDrive 3.5i
18 CITY / 27 HIGHWAY, 21 COMBINED 300 hp (and, in my opinion, the only formidable opponent of this segment in terms of power, driveability; however, it costs way much more and has a lot less utility than the XC90)

Acura MDX SH-AWD
same as BMW numbers, less HP/torque (290 and 267, respectively). Again, less utility and less mileage than the XC90 and costs more

Mercedes-Benz ML350
18 CITY/24 HWY, 19 COMBINED. 302 HP/272 torque. Less power, higher MSRP

Audi Q7
18 CITY/27 HWY, 21 COMBINED 280 hp and 295 torque less HP and similar torque to XC90), higher MSRP
Audi Q7 TDI
19 CITY/28 HWY, 22 COMBINED, higher MSRP, higher fuel costs, similar fuel mileage even though it is diesel

Jeep Grand Cherokee 3.6L AWD
17 CITY/24 HWY, 19 COMBINED



Is there a reason you omitted the BMW X5 diesel? 24/31 mpg, 27 mpg combined. These are in my opinion class leading numbers for a 7-seater.

detourdog
04-05-2015, 09:09 AM
no, didn't mean it to sound that way

Just forgot to insert that info

x3=xc60<xc70<x5<xc90 (cargo capacity)

(I'm dealing with a cough and the related medicinal haze)

Also, I thought the discussion was about the XC90....

The biggest problem with the above is that the xc70 has more cargo capacity then x5.

23ish cubic feet for the x5 and 33ish for the xc70 back seats up.
66 cubic feet for the x5 and 72ish for the xc70 back seats down.

MorrisonHiker
04-05-2015, 09:40 AM
Is there a reason you omitted the BMW X5 diesel? 24/31 mpg, 27 mpg combined. These are in my opinion class leading numbers for a 7-seater.
He sells Volvos for a living. [emoji6]

I don't care at all about the combined mpg numbers because they don't reflect MY driving percentages. I probably drive 90% or more "highway" miles. For MY style of driving, the rated highway mpg is the most important number. In my current vehicle, rated at 19 MPG city and 23 mpg highway, I have averaged 25.9 MPG over the past 189,600 miles and I have often had tanks averaging over 30 mpg. I think I've only had one tank where the average was actually below 22 mpg. I have been waiting over a year for the XC90 performance numbers, hoping the T8 would truly have astounding mpg numbers. (I know most of the above posts are for the T6.) Maybe the T8's numbers will place it among the best performing 7 seaters but I don't need a 7 seater. The performance numbers aren't good enough for me to consider gambling $70,000+ and hoping I would actually average better than the rated mpg. The V60 is better suited for my needs and if the V60 plug-in had been offered in the U.S., I should've bought it the day it was released. When the XC60 plug-in hybrid concept was shown, I figured it could meet my needs as well. Unfortunately it hasn't been released yet either. While it might finally make it to the market in the next year or two, there will be several other competitors on the roads in that timeframe as well. If I was going to spend $70,000+ today on a vehicle that fits my needs, I would end up with the Tesla S 85D. Considering inventory model discounts and available tax credits, the price comes in lower than the XC90 and I wouldn't ever have to discuss mpg numbers again. [emoji6]

pattyweb
04-05-2015, 10:37 AM
I can go on and on but it is a fact that this XC90 and its fantastic engine generating from ONLY 2.0L, 316 hp and 290 lbs/ft torque gets 22 MPG combined, tows more than many 6-cyl engines, does not rely on dull CVT transmissions, equals or beats some diesel engines in its competitive segment and also generating better 0-60 sec times except against the X5. All this while providing equal to higher level standard equiment with LOWER MSRP (w/ the exception of the Jeep which cannot even come close to the amount of standard features that the new XC90 has).

The issue with your comparisons is that you only include those things where you can say Volvo is the same or better, many times exaggerating in the process, and you always leave out where the Volvo is lacking.

The XC90 can NOT tow OVER 5000lbs. 5000lbs is the max. The XC90 does NOT tow way more than many 6cyls, it has the lowest rating as far as I can tell of every car on your list, tying for last place with the MDX. The bmw can tow 6000lbs. The ML350 is even more I think.

The MDX, if one does not need AWD or Nav, is available at a starting lower price in FWD with slightly better mileage.

The jeep 6cyl uses regular fuel and can tow 6200lbs, costs WAY less, but doesn't have a 3rd row. The better comparison would be the durango that has the 3rd row. And unlike Volvo, it also is available with just RWD and a combined 20mpg rating on REGULAR fuel. 10% lower mpg, but premium costs 20% more. If you take into account the extra cost of premium fuel that all the other cars you listed need, the durango will end up costing the least in annual fuel costs of all the cars on your list. And no headaches of supercharger or turbocharger issues, of course, one gives up 0-60. A fully loaded durango costs less than a base XC90 and at least they offer an 8cyl for those people that want one, captains chairs options, and a bunch of other stuff that the XC90 doesn't. If I was to move into an XC90 from my durango, sure I would gain some stuff, but I would also loose stuff in the process, and at least for me, I'd loose more of what's important to me than I would gain. For me, an XC90 'upgrade' represents more backwards than forward steps.

It's all apples to oranges comparisons. Some cars perform better in some areas, some don't. There is no ACE in the hole model from any brand that excels in absolutely every single category.

The main point of this thread is that it seems like the consumer has gained nothing by Volvo putting a 4cyl in the XC90 except possible future maintenance issues with the super or turbocharger and an inferior sounding engine especially when pressed hard. Volvo has gained with CAFE, etc, but it just doesn't seem like the consumer has gained anything. And we haven't even gotten to real world mileage yet which is going to be harder to achieve with a turbo 4.

With similar fuel economies and/or annual fuel costs, towing, performance, what would a typical consumer prefer? A 4cyl or a 6cyl?

What is it about the X5 6cyl that Volvo can't duplicate and offer a similar 6cyl OPTION in the XC90 with all the benefits? In a heartbeat, I'd bet more people would pay for that option than are willing to pay for the T8.

BrianV
04-05-2015, 10:55 AM
Apparently, BrianV has not spent any time in the 3rd row of the XC90 and compare it to that of the MDX and the X5...which are true punishment and cannot accommodate a person up to 5'7'' tall, like the XC90 can.

At almost 32" legroom,in the 3rd row, the XC90 has more legroom than the Acura, BMW, Audi or Infiniti.

It also beats all SUVs in its segment in cargo room w/ the 3rd row up except for teh Infiniti QX60 AWD, with which it's tied (15.8 cu ft).

Spent a lot of time in a 2014 R-Design XC90 loaner that I had over Thanksgiving holiday where we had my entire family here. I did sit back there for various 30 minute trips. I did mention that in an earlier post. Measurements aside, it was not comfortable at all. It was also difficult to get into and out of. It is not a friendly place for adults (not saying the competition is either) but it's not a compelling reason for me to buy the car, and I stated earlier to those defending the 7 passengers, I suggested if that was truly a major buying point, they'd be better served looking at a fullsize vehicle, etc.

BrianV
04-05-2015, 10:58 AM
What this forum needs is some first hand experience ;)
I drive a Volvo V60 Plug-In Hybrid daily and the transitions between electric and ICE are very fluid with normal driving. (something I believe most car journalists are not accustomed with)
The only thing that gives me some doubts about the harmony is the great tire wear I am experiencing.
Could be the weight of the car, could be the torque, or perhaps the transitions between the two engines.
Apart from the tire wear I am enjoying this car very much.

I share the concerns about the completely new ICE engines and platform, but Volvo has the know-how and experience to build a good plug-in hybrid.
My fuel consumption has gone way down while the V60 Plug-In has a rather obsolete diesel and gearbox.
Can't really say anything about the T8 of course, but I have had enough faith to put an order down.

I cited a review with the ONLY guy I've seen who has first hand experience, at this point in time that's the best any of us can talk about. If we don't speculate and discuss the best available information, then we might as well just shut this entire thread down.

BrianV
04-05-2015, 11:08 AM
The main point of this thread is that it seems like the consumer has gained nothing by Volvo putting a 4cyl in the XC90 except possible future maintenance issues with the super or turbocharger and an inferior sounding engine especially when pressed hard. Volvo has gained with CAFE, etc, but it just doesn't seem like the consumer has gained anything. And we haven't even gotten to real world mileage yet which is going to be harder to achieve with a turbo 4.

Well said.

geokilla
04-05-2015, 11:54 AM
You are incorrect. EPA will test cars for "City" (max. speed 56 mph), "Highway" (max. speed 60 mph) and "High speed" (max. speed 80 mph) plus w/ AC (max. speed 54.8 mph) and one test w/ cold engine (max. speed 56 mph). The "City" test is also performed w/ a cold engine. The first three tests are also done for distances anywhere from 8.5 to a little over 10 miles so all gears are utilized.

If you're talking about this (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml), then you just proved my point on how the EPA 5 cycle test does not allow the MDX kick into overdrive and lower RPMs, resulting in lower fuel economy ratings. Also explains why a lot of cars are getting lower than rated fuel consumption, Volvo included.

I understand you're a salesman and you represent Volvo but please be more realistic and accept criticism. Criticism is not necessarily a bad thing.

IIHS
04-05-2015, 12:01 PM
^ Indeed. If we can't admit shortcomings, there's no room for improvement.

goVolvo
04-05-2015, 05:29 PM
Well said.

If Volvo offered a 6 cyl XC90 it would be say 3k more than Drive-E T6. Then you will see that Drive-E T6 does save you money immediaty and also gas cost in the long run. I understand many still would buy 6cyl. But it is unfair to say Drive-E 4cyl does nothing good for customers.

VolvoFaRmeR
04-05-2015, 06:12 PM
Spent a lot of time in a 2014 R-Design XC90 loaner that I had over Thanksgiving holiday where we had my entire family here. I did sit back there for various 30 minute trips. I did mention that in an earlier post. Measurements aside, it was not comfortable at all. It was also difficult to get into and out of. It is not a friendly place for adults (not saying the competition is either) but it's not a compelling reason for me to buy the car, and I stated earlier to those defending the 7 passengers, I suggested if that was truly a major buying point, they'd be better served looking at a fullsize vehicle, etc.

Guess you missed the part where I mention the HUGE improvement of the new XC90 in 3rd row seat space. Throw the measurements out of the window!!!!! Sit in a old XC90 and a new XC90 and you'll immediately recognize how its so much more comfortable!!!! More room in every way, more toe row, higher cushion height, more leg room, more visibility. And you missed how the new XC90 has significantly changed the ease of entry to the third row, now actually making a "stepping ledge" just inside the door sill to easy place your foot and get in and out, all while increasing the space of entry between the seat and the door opening to gain entry.

Your comparison of spending substantial time in the back of a old XC90 tells us NOTHING about the new one, as it is a VERY different experience. I know....I've been in the back seat of two different new XC90s now a couple of times.

Really, this whole discussion has gotten out of hand for one reason.....most of the opinionated posts here so vehemently trying to convince us about a car they have never driven, or even sat it! And those of us that actually have seem to have our opinions brushed aside as nothing but Volvo fan boys, as if we couldn't possibly be correct.

And I'm going to throw up the next time I see the BMW X5 listed as a 7seat vehicle.....you all are living in crazy land if you think that back row even resembles the Volvo's. Geez.

I'd lay off the intense criticism of GrecianVolvo as well.....you may agree with his take, and yes we all know he works for Volvo. Great. Lets not beat up one of the few VERY knowledgable people that post on here that actually have experience and insight basically no one else on this sight has!!!!! Comments like those made here tend to drive people off a site for good, and I for one don't want to see him go. He contributes a tremendous amount here, and some of you are going to ruin a bad thing for someone that passes along a lot of info to Volvo from this sight. It blows my mind how some of you think your opinion represents every Volvo owner. Some of you are on the fringe....don't speak for me!

VolvoFaRmeR
04-05-2015, 06:19 PM
I can go on and on but it is a fact that this XC90 and its fantastic engine generating from ONLY 2.0L, 316 hp and 290 lbs/ft torque gets 22 MPG combined, tows more than many 6-cyl engines, does not rely on dull CVT transmissions, equals or beats some diesel engines in its competitive segment and also generating better 0-60 sec times except against the X5. All this while providing equal to higher level standard equiment with LOWER MSRP (w/ the exception of the Jeep which cannot even come close to the amount of standard features that the new XC90 has).

It's amazing the criticism being dispatched here, and yet no one wants to admit this is the REAL fact of the matter position we are in. No one wants to seem to admit all of the above is true...and rather impressive actually. If it doesn't impress you, good lord....please go buy that X5 that's sooooo amazing I guess.....geez. Whatever. Or save up for the Q7 4CYLINDER!!!

V60_PHEV
04-05-2015, 06:21 PM
I cited a review with the ONLY guy I've seen who has first hand experience, at this point in time that's the best any of us can talk about. If we don't speculate and discuss the best available information, then we might as well just shut this entire thread down.
I was not trying to say you shouldn't speculate, I only tried to share my experience with the Volvo Plug-In that has already been made.

I have watched a lot more reviews of the T8, but now I have watched your guy too.
Not quite sure what he is trying to say though: (English is not my native language, perhaps that's the problem):

But the XC90 is still a heavy car, tipping the scales at over 2 tons.
As such the 8 speed automatic in the T8 often hunts for the right gear under acceleration.
And the switch between petrol and electric propulsion is quite noticeable, at least that is if you are keeping an eye on the tacho.
Because in all other situations the 8 speed automatic is rather smooth in the way that it shifts.

If you need the tacho to notice the switch, I guess it's rather smooth

For the rest I am all in favor of discussions and speculations to pass 6 more months waiting time till my car arrives.

whizkid
04-05-2015, 06:38 PM
A couple of years ago I started researching some sedan options and began looking on sites like fuelly.com to see what owners were getting in term of "real world" mileage figures. I looked at ton of cars, and I was a bit shocked. Here's what I learned: most stuff ends up the low 20s, and only the "hybrids" got really good numbers. Basically, all the gas engine tech in the world doesn't seem to offset the hybrid model of basically "turning off the engine" as much of the time as humanly possible (which explains why stop/start tech is on everything new now).

Having said that, let's look at the T8 plug-in hybrid. You get a big jump in power when you want/need it and a RWD boost at that. If your daily commute is short (under 20 miles), you may use little to no gas during that time. Let that sink in for a moment. You still have a vehicle capable of making longer trips in comfort, with a lot of utility and power, BUT for the everyday boring commute...you reduce your gas usage by anywhere from 25-100% depending on the length of your commute. This is why it is hard to compare traditional mileage numbers against plug-in hybrids. Your daily driving pattern can DRAMATICALLY alter your fuel usage.

As my sig shows, I have a Chevy Volt plug-in (gas engine and electric motor/battery). I have 30,868 miles on it, but the gas engine was running for only 6403 of those miles...for 24,465 miles the engine was OFF! Heck, even when the battery runs out it acts like a traditional hybrid in that the engine turns off when I come to a stop. Yes, the gas savings are tremendous, but there are a ton of other benefits. Electric driving is sublime and ridiculously smooth with instant torque at 0 rpm. I only stop at gas stations every 6 weeks or so...hot weather, cold weather, rainy weather, late to work, etc. - I'm just standing at the pump way less. Regenerative braking means that after 2.5 years of ownership I have almost no brake dust on the wheels. For cars with stop/start tech, they generally start out off the line in pure EV mode eliminating the abrupt "startup" of the engine. It's even "fun" to see how far you can go on a charge believe it or not.

While the T8 won't have the nearly same electric range or full electric capabilities as the Volt, it will likely be a gateway drug to even more capable electrics for those folks that decide to step up to it...and this from a gear head. Personally, we don't need the larger XC90 and am hoping the next gen XC60 gets a T8 version.

Finally, BMW will also be offering the X5 plug-in hybrid with a similar 4-banger plus electric motor model.

Thanks for the 411 on your experience! Very, very interesting. Car technology, like many others, can be fun, exciting and frustrating all at the same time.

"May you live in interesting times!"

GrecianVolvo
04-05-2015, 07:10 PM
The XC90 can NOT tow OVER 5000lbs. 5000lbs is the max. The XC90 does NOT tow way more than many 6cyls, it has the lowest rating as far as I can tell of every car on your list, tying for last place with the MDX. The bmw can tow 6000lbs. The ML350 is even more I think.

The new XC90 is rated to tow 5,291 lbs. The MDX is at 3,500 lbs. and needs AWD to tow 5,000 lbs (with a SIX-cylinder engine and NINE gears).


The MDX, if one does not need AWD or Nav, is available at a starting lower price in FWD with slightly better mileage.

And Volvo will have an answer for this, as well. Still, the XC90 T6 generates equal mileage with the "improved" MY16 MDX while it provides more power.


And no headaches of supercharger or turbocharger issues

Head aches? Are you trying to guess the future? That is a job best left for the Greek oracle of Delphi but that's a different story.


For me, an XC90 'upgrade' represents more backwards than forward steps.

That's right, for you. And that is perfectly acceptable. We all have different tastes and priorities. You could not catch me dead in a Chrysler product; I would rather own a Ford SUV rather any Chrysler product.


It's all apples to oranges comparisons. Some cars perform better in some areas, some don't. There is no ACE in the hole model from any brand that excels in absolutely every single category.

I wrote that, several times, above.


The main point of this thread is that it seems like the consumer has gained nothing by Volvo putting a 4cyl in the XC90

That is your prerogative. 24,000 people, thus far, have decided that they think differently than you and that number is about to spike dramatically.


except possible future maintenance issues with the super or turbocharger

Again, you are being presumptuous and have nothing to base this on. In the meantime, the facts point to numerous Chrysler recalls, not the same active/passive safety approach, overall quality build, etc.


and an inferior sounding engine especially when pressed hard.

I did not realize you had already driven the new XC90...


What is it about the X5 6cyl that Volvo can't duplicate and offer a similar 6cyl OPTION in the XC90 with all the benefits?

I am not sure. All I kno is that EPA only tests 10% to 15% of all vehicles. I wonder if they have actuallyt put the X5 through their test. Let's hope we will not be seeing any X5 sharing similar headlines like Ford, Huyndai, etc. Its numbers are strong, indeed.


In a heartbeat, I'd bet more people would pay for that option than are willing to pay for the T8.

We will find out, soon.

pattyweb
04-05-2015, 08:54 PM
The new XC90 is rated to tow 5,291 lbs. The MDX is at 3,500 lbs. and needs AWD to tow 5,000 lbs (with a SIX-cylinder

The US/Canada XC90 T6 Manual on page 539 for the US says 5000lbs. You did say "Acura MDX SH-AWD" in your post.


Still, the XC90 T6 generates equal mileage with the "improved" MY16 MDX while it provides more power.

And what comes from 'more power'? I search 0-60s between them and find numbers ranging from 6.1 to 6.6 for the XC90 T6 and an actual 6.4 for the MDX. 0-60's can be all over the place and vary a lot between reviews. For the most part, the T6, MDX, and X5 seem close enough together that I at least find the differences trivial. I personally don't really care about 0-60 that much anymore. I don't want the slowest, but I don't need the fastest either.

That the T6 4cyl can match them is IMPRESSIVE. That it basically burns the same amount of fuel in the process begs the question WHY would one want a 4cyl then?


Head aches? Are you trying to guess the future? That is a job best left for the Greek oracle of Delphi but that's a different story.

Come on and be honest with yourself. The more complex a design, the more hoses, tubes, cooling, valves, sensors, moving parts, etc the more likely something is to go wrong.


That is your prerogative. 24,000 people, thus far, have decided that they think differently than you and that number is about to spike dramatically

I've read and that is great, but IMO what really matters is what's happening 3 years from now. The first XC90 was a home run in the US, but who's waiting lists and msrp prices only lasted a few months, sales peaked the 2nd full year, and then downhill since. I really do hope things go better this time.


I did not realize you had already driven the new XC90...

If owners AND reviewers complain about it in a 60s model, I don't see how it's going to be better in an XC90.


Again, you are being presumptuous and have nothing to base this on. In the meantime, the facts point to numerous Chrysler recalls, not the same active/passive safety approach, overall quality build, etc.

For 2015 vehicle dependability, both brands are below average, Chrysler barely better than Volvo. Volvo also has recalls. Everybody has recalls.



I like the 4cyl DriveE engines and I think they are a great match for the 60s models. Many people on this board have put down the DriveE engines. I have not been with them. Since the beginning my only issue with the DriveE is if it would really be able to work it's magic in an XC90. In the end in the XC90, relative to what Volvo could most likely have done with a 6cyl, the DriveE appears to excel at nothing and I do not think is a good match. It's not bad, but I just don't see the point. It's not leaps or bounds above the competition in any way. But the competition in various categories does better Volvo in some areas more than Volvo can better them.

I wonder that if Volvo could have peaked into the future way back when they made that 4cyl only announcement and seen these results, would they still have committed to 4cyl only? In the end, IMO, it seems to me that the 4 cyl only is all about Volvo and them making it easier for themselves to make CAFE, but marketing it like it's for consumer, but really, it was never about the consumer.

On the ford explorer, the eco drive 4 cyl is a $1000 upgrade that last time I read years ago, not many were choosing despite I think a 3mpg improvement over the standard 6. As price goes up, as in the XC90, I'd expect people to care even less about mpgs. If Volvo had offered a base 6cyl comparable to the MDX or X5 with mpg that essentially matched the T6, maybe even better highway, more towing, and either less 0-60 on regular fuel or similar 0-60 like the bmw/mdx on premium, and then also offered the T6 4cyl DriveE as a $1000-2000 upgrade, I'd bet most people would not pay the extra $$ for 1 more mpg in the city.

It is what it is. We're stuck with it. An exceptional engine, but that put into an XC90, only manages to basically break even with the competition and can't really stand out by any substantial measure that matters to consumers. It was an uphill battle, it puts up a great fight, but was it worth it? It will take some years to determine if it's truly a success.

VolvoFaRmeR
04-05-2015, 09:09 PM
Pattyweb, you live in a different world......almost not a single part of that rambling makes any sense or is factual or based on sound reasoning. I won't even waste my time trying to comment. And to think you recently posted you were "for the brand" and you said you post positive things about Volvo. All you do is criticize and drag the brand through the mud. Why the heck do you even own a Volvo?!? To think you would ever say a Chrysler is of equal quality to a Volvo...now that's just a trip! I worked at a Chrysler dealership as a service advisor shortly after at Volvo for a while before I left the industry....I'd never seen such crappy cars as CJD.

adp
04-05-2015, 10:11 PM
By the way, other than my monthly fuel bill statement (for which I have real numbers to back up my claim but not going to post here), I am stating HARD FACTS and real numbers; your post is very presumptuous, sarcastic and has nothing but anecdotal info or personal opinions.

Thank you for the helpful posts.

That dude is acting like a prick

adp
04-05-2015, 10:20 PM
...the durango....

but....then you'd be driving a friggin DURANGO

and that, in itself, would suck arse

geokilla
04-05-2015, 10:22 PM
So someone answer this. Driv-E are modular aren't they? I remember reading a long time ago that they are. This means that should the T6 and T8 Driv-E fail due to disappointing fuel economy, reliability, complaints, and/or consumer needs/wants, then Volvo can technically make a 5 and 6 cylinder Driv-E engine if they wish right?


Guess you missed the part where I mention the HUGE improvement of the new XC90 in 3rd row seat space. Throw the measurements out of the window!!!!! Sit in a old XC90 and a new XC90 and you'll immediately recognize how its so much more comfortable!!!! More room in every way, more toe row, higher cushion height, more leg room, more visibility. And you missed how the new XC90 has significantly changed the ease of entry to the third row, now actually making a "stepping ledge" just inside the door sill to easy place your foot and get in and out, all while increasing the space of entry between the seat and the door opening to gain entry.

I'd lay off the intense criticism of GrecianVolvo as well.....you may agree with his take, and yes we all know he works for Volvo. Great. Lets not beat up one of the few VERY knowledgeable people that post on here that actually have experience and insight basically no one else on this sight has!!!!! Comments like those made here tend to drive people off a site for good, and I for one don't want to see him go. He contributes a tremendous amount here, and some of you are going to ruin a bad thing for someone that passes along a lot of info to Volvo from this sight. It blows my mind how some of you think your opinion represents every Volvo owner. Some of you are on the fringe....don't speak for me!

The first gen XC90's 3rd row seat were awful to begin in my opinion so to say the new XC90 makes an improvement is a "dur" kind of moment for me. If it got any more cramped then you might as well buy the XC60 instead. And while you say throw the measurements out of the window, you or some other posters constantly criticize the interior space in the S60 saying it is significantly inferior to the S70 because objectively the numbers say that but subjectively I and many others I know say the opposite.

I know a Volvo employee has stopped posting here because this board is atrocious. We can't criticize Volvos here at all. Even Volkswagen Vortex acknowledges that their board is biased to Volkswagen because surprise, it's a board about Volkswagens!


Pattyweb, you live in a different world......almost not a single part of that rambling makes any sense or is factual or based on sound reasoning. I won't even waste my time trying to comment. And to think you recently posted you were "for the brand" and you said you post positive things about Volvo. All you do is criticize and drag the brand through the mud. Why the heck do you even own a Volvo?!? To think you would ever say a Chrysler is of equal quality to a Volvo...now that's just a trip! I worked at a Chrysler dealership as a service adviser shortly after at Volvo for a while before I left the industry....I'd never seen such crappy cars as CJD.

And I can tell you that Chrysler has improved significantly over the years. I don't know if you sat in a Chrysler 200 recently, but for $25k CAD, the Chrysler 200 looks awfully nice and uses materials much, much better than our 2014 Acura ILX. You need to keep up to date with the industry and be informed. It's like when people say Volkswagen are **** because they had tons of electrical and computer issues 10 to 15 years ago. I'm sure things have improved in the last 10 to 15 years. Even Toyotas get recalled now!

BrianV
04-05-2015, 10:34 PM
Guess you missed the part where I mention the HUGE improvement of the new XC90 in 3rd row seat space. Throw the measurements out of the window!!!!! Sit in a old XC90 and a new XC90 and you'll immediately recognize how its so much more comfortable!!!! More room in every way, more toe row, higher cushion height, more leg room, more visibility. And you missed how the new XC90 has significantly changed the ease of entry to the third row, now actually making a "stepping ledge" just inside the door sill to easy place your foot and get in and out, all while increasing the space of entry between the seat and the door opening to gain entry.

Your comparison of spending substantial time in the back of a old XC90 tells us NOTHING about the new one, as it is a VERY different experience. I know....I've been in the back seat of two different new XC90s now a couple of times.

Really, this whole discussion has gotten out of hand for one reason.....most of the opinionated posts here so vehemently trying to convince us about a car they have never driven, or even sat it! And those of us that actually have seem to have our opinions brushed aside as nothing but Volvo fan boys, as if we couldn't possibly be correct.

And I'm going to throw up the next time I see the BMW X5 listed as a 7seat vehicle.....you all are living in crazy land if you think that back row even resembles the Volvo's. Geez.

I'd lay off the intense criticism of GrecianVolvo as well.....you may agree with his take, and yes we all know he works for Volvo. Great. Lets not beat up one of the few VERY knowledgable people that post on here that actually have experience and insight basically no one else on this sight has!!!!! Comments like those made here tend to drive people off a site for good, and I for one don't want to see him go. He contributes a tremendous amount here, and some of you are going to ruin a bad thing for someone that passes along a lot of info to Volvo from this sight. It blows my mind how some of you think your opinion represents every Volvo owner. Some of you are on the fringe....don't speak for me!

I was not responding to you, but regardless, I admitted earlier and continually that I have no need/desire for a 7 passenger vehicle. I was responding to another accusing that I haven't been in the back of an XC90 in comparison to MDX/X5. It was not specified 2nd gen in the comment towards me, and it should be assumed that almost nobody here will have sat in a car that is not out yet. For what it's worth, I've not sat in a 3rd gen MDX or X5 either, but I have sat in a 2nd gen MDX and X5 and a first gen XC90 and they were all lousy (2008 MDX, 2009 X5 and 2014 XC90 - Beg I say that the MDX was probably the best). Hence I defend my position that anyone that is coming here and defending the XC90's 3rd row prowess is probably better served by other vehicles (any minivan destroys an XC90 in terms of third row). Neither here nor there, it's of almost zero relevance to me (the third row).

My original point and the major hurdle I have to overcome with the XC90 is that they are using a 4 cylinder twin-charged engine to only match and in some ways be less than the competitions' 6-cylinder single-charged engines. The X5 was just the most obvious example, hence I brought it up (and while it may be smaller, it can seat 7). It's worth mentioning (again) that the BMW X5 N55 engine came out in 2009. I just feel a little disappointed that the XC90, a future vehicle in high regard for my purchase has to use such a small and high-boost engine to come short of a 6 year old German engine. If it made 30+ highway MPG, I could buy into the investment as to why make such a small engine, but it doesn't, so I'm left scratching my head. All things being equal (HP, MPG, etc), I would prefer a larger engine. Sue me, but the reason for a smaller engine is efficiency and if someone can make a larger engine more efficient than a smaller engine, hat's off to them. It's generally proven that more displacement and more cylinders results in smoother, more refined and quieter (and better sounding) powertrains. Note that I drive a C7 Audi S6 which has a twin-turbo V8 and a woefully underrated 420 HP (0-60 in 3.7 seconds); dyno's show it putting out closer to 480 crank HP. It's also insanely silent and smooth. In the S6, I get 28 mpg on the highway in a very large and heavy car. It is a very impressive offering considering my earlier V8 BMW M3 made less power, was slower, was lighter and got only 19-20mpg on the highway. I guess that's how I see things in terms of efficiency improvements...

I like my I6 Polestar 3.0L from a power and refinement standpoint, but it's port-injected and gets lousy gas mileage, but we don't drive a lot so I don't mind the tradeoff. I understand why to Volvo and to the motoring public that it is no longer viable. However, it feels like they took steps back to make a very small step forward. If I could get the XC90 with the BMW N55 engine, the Audi 3.0L TFSI engine or the Range Rover Sport 3.0L S/C V6 in an XC90, I think we'd have a home run. I want the XC90 to be successful, I truly do, I've been a big advocate of Volvo, but I just worry that a car this expensive running a 2.0L I-4 that doesn't match the performance, economy and refinement of competitors' 6-cylinder offerings will somewhat work against it (as an American).

GrecianVolvo
04-05-2015, 10:44 PM
Come on and be honest with yourself. The more complex a design, the more hoses, tubes, cooling, valves, sensors, moving parts, etc the more likely something is to go wrong.

Speaking of being honest with yourself; which engine is more reliable? A Continental O-320-H2AD (or add your favorite propeller engine) or a GE90 Turbofan with its "more complex design, more hoses, tubes, cooling, valves, sensors, moving parts, etc"?

Just curious.

BrianV
04-05-2015, 11:04 PM
Speaking of being honest with yourself; which engine is more reliable? A Continental O-320-H2AD (or add your favorite propeller engine) or a GE90 Turbofan with its "more complex design, more hoses, tubes, cooling, valves, sensors, moving parts, etc"?

Just curious.

Not even a remotely viable comparison. Comparing a propeller engine (from the 60s/70s) to a high bypass jet engine (from the mid 90s) is not in the same ballpark. Things do get more exotic as time goes by and to your intended point, they do get more reliable as manufacturers learn more (from past mistakes). The same is true for airline engines. That said, big American V8s and simple Toyota engines without forced induction and exotic-ness seem to still be the cars that truck along to 150-250K miles without any major attention. I believe the was the original point.

Granted and fortunately for Volvo, they applied two relatively proven and well known technologies in supercharging and turbocharging together so it isn't crazy complex, however, there is a lot more to go wrong and it certainly is a more expensive design.

goVolvo
04-05-2015, 11:22 PM
I think it is clear that a 6cyl option will be more than welcomed in America, even if DriveE4 could achieve 28mph highway. This was clear even before XC90 debut. As I6 has been already on 60 series for many years, I don't see it wise to give it all up in SPA platform. Since 60 series can use I6 or DriveE4 exchangeably, it does seem unwise to not making SPA so. If same I6 could be dropped in SPA, it would be very easy for Volvo to add it back and sell 20k more XC90 in America. This is of course much better than 4cyl only reality.

Volvo may be forward looking 10 years into future. But even if 6cyl fade away after 10 years, it is still a big market of 10 years. Even if German car makers all give up 6cyl in this segmemt, there are still American and Japanese luxury 6cyl selling in the market.

Adrian-C30R
04-06-2015, 01:40 AM
Spent a lot of time in a 2014 R-Design XC90 loaner that I had over Thanksgiving holiday where we had my entire family here. I did sit back there for various 30 minute trips. I did mention that in an earlier post. Measurements aside, it was not comfortable at all. It was also difficult to get into and out of. It is not a friendly place for adults (not saying the competition is either) but it's not a compelling reason for me to buy the car, and I stated earlier to those defending the 7 passengers, I suggested if that was truly a major buying point, they'd be better served looking at a fullsize vehicle, etc.

You do, of course, realize that the 2016 XC90 we're all talking about is a completely different model (as in, there's a 15 year engineering/design gap between the two) than a 2014 model.

Adrian-C30R
04-06-2015, 01:51 AM
Not even a remotely viable comparison. Comparing a propeller engine (from the 60s/70s) to a high bypass jet engine (from the mid 90s) is not in the same ballpark. Things do get more exotic as time goes by and to your intended point, they do get more reliable as manufacturers learn more (from past mistakes)

So in exactly what way is this not happening in the automotive world? Remember when turbos were seen as the most unreliable things you could attach to an engine. Welp..... Look how that ended up. Superchargers are nothing new either, and Volvo was one of the first automakers to introduce turbos on very common cars, so it's hardly their first rodeo.

hastee
04-06-2015, 02:26 AM
i do not come here to find shill fan boys insulting customers away through insult. yet, it is consistent with my wife's insistence that we sell our 2012 v60 problem child and get a ford fusion hybrid.

how is greece doing greecy?

i would prefer accurate information regarding facts.

VolvoFaRmeR
04-06-2015, 03:07 AM
i do not come here to find shill fan boys insulting customers away through insult. yet, it is consistent with my wife's insistence that we sell our 2012 v60 problem child and get a ford fusion hybrid.

how is greece doing greecy?

i would prefer accurate information regarding facts.

How interesting......The your V60 models wasn't even made in 2012 :facepalm:

VolvoFaRmeR
04-06-2015, 03:19 AM
And I can tell you that Chrysler has improved significantly over the years. I don't know if you sat in a Chrysler 200 recently, but for $25k CAD, the Chrysler 200 looks awfully nice and uses materials much, much better than our 2014 Acura ILX. You need to keep up to date with the industry and be informed. It's like when people say Volkswagen are **** because they had tons of electrical and computer issues 10 to 15 years ago. I'm sure things have improved in the last 10 to 15 years. Even Toyotas get recalled now!

LOL! Keep up and informed on the industry?!?!? Are you kidding? I doubt there are many people that "keep up" with the industry as much as I do that don't actually work in it! I recently pilled on about 800 miles to spend multiple days at an auto show for one reason....just hang out on the floor and check out about everything under the sun. Yeah....I've sat in a new 200....and every other CDJ on the market. I've got a slew of friends that manage dealerships I talk with all the time. I have subscriptions and read auto-industry publications designed for dealers. I worked in the industry for years....Yeah I keep up.

Your ILX is nothing more than a tarted up Civic, and yes...the interior blew. The new update for this year helps significantly (yeah, I've sat in the revamped ILX as well). Volkswagen looks fine when new....but up close tons of ill-fitting plastic, mold lines, corner cutting all over. Looks great in photos, doesn't play out in the real world. I owned a VW....got bought back by VW to avoid lemon law (see, I'm VERY informed on how the industry works, negotiated a buy back and didn't even buy another VW product). Wait a few years and you'll see the VW wear in a very un-premium fashion...buttons that have the letters wear off, creaks a rattles galore, and yeah, their fair share of electrical issues still (My friends 20,000 MILE VW Jetta TDI has been in the shop 4 times in the last month for turn signals that intermittently work...gremlins STILL at VW). I've driven everything from Lambo Gallardos to V12 BMWs to MB CL600s to Ford Focus and Dodge Sprinter vans. Yeah....I'm up to date on the industry. I'm informed. Thanks. I'm good..... My opinions are opinions.....but they are backed up by industry experience, experience industry workers who I talk with, and lots of driving. Oh, my cousin currently works for Honda....he's evaluating a new engine in the all-new Ridgeline about to be introduced. Another industry insider I get fed info from.

pattyweb
04-06-2015, 07:03 AM
Speaking of being honest with yourself; which engine is more reliable? A Continental O-320-H2AD (or add your favorite propeller engine) or a GE90 Turbofan with its "more complex design, more hoses, tubes, cooling, valves, sensors, moving parts, etc"?

I don't see the point in comparing to airplane engines that are built, maintained and serviced with much greater care and oversight, but to your point, jet engines actually have way less moving parts than conventional engines and the design itself is a much smoother design with less vibrations so it lasts longer.

volvokhaled
04-06-2015, 10:09 AM
http://wardsauto.com/test-drives/volvo-fighting-premium-cuv-customers?page=1

BrianV
04-06-2015, 10:52 AM
So in exactly what way is this not happening in the automotive world? Remember when turbos were seen as the most unreliable things you could attach to an engine. Welp..... Look how that ended up. Superchargers are nothing new either, and Volvo was one of the first automakers to introduce turbos on very common cars, so it's hardly their first rodeo.

My statement was that the specific comparison of a 60s-70s aircraft piston engine to a high-bypass jet engine developed in the 90s was not a worthy comparison of a Twin-charged engine vs a single-charged or naturally aspirated engine. I went on to further clarify that. I was only being critical of an inappropriate comparison. Also, to GrecianVolvo's original comparison, it was actually flawed as modern jet engines are quite simple and simply moves air through various compression chambers and then ignites the compressed air (over simplified to save space and stay relevant to cars). Moving parts are mostly just spinning to accomplish this. It is a novel design that works well and is fairly simple considering the immense power developed. It is more simple than a piston engine in terms of individual moving parts moving parts, metal on metal contact, etc.

Neither here nor there, engines have gotten extensively more complex while being more reliable. Power and efficiency has also gone up as a result. If the engine and components are maintained well, it should last longer than most new car buyers will own it.

hastee
04-06-2015, 12:31 PM
How interesting......The your V60 models wasn't even made in 2012 :facepalm:

yep, your right. my mistake. typo or my regular lousy spelling. s60 t5 it shouod read.

12Ounce
04-06-2015, 02:17 PM
Pattyweb... you live in a different world. A world of healthy criticism and arguments. I also wonder why Volvo has brought so much attention to what might be considered its weakest properties. If it had been my call, I would have focused on other attributes ... perhaps stronger, longer lasting under body systems. Not a four cylinder engine with fore and aft induction fans ... and headlights with names. If fewer cylinders makes so much sense, why not leap ahead to ONE cylinder? I could lend them my push mower engine for experimentation. I use to be a Volvo Fan with full credentials ... but with ownership pain, I have been turned away. Looking forward to your postings.
.
Aircraft engines for small airframes? I always found this interesting: .. http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/homebuilt-aircraft/subaru-aircraft-engines.php

JCWOITA
04-06-2015, 03:55 PM
You couldn't be more wrong......I've sat in the 3rd row. It hardly even comparable to the MDX, and the X5 is laughable. I don't care what the numbers say. When you sit in the third row you won't believe the view, the the foot room, the headroom, the visibility, the seat cushion size and the height off the floor. The XC90 is WAY more hospitable than a Tahoe! Forget the specs, take a seat. Many are going to be shocked at the difference from the first gen XC90

Thank you for posting this - I truly hope you are right! I've had 2 Volvos and after we had our 3rd kid we opted to get a Toyota Highlander since we actually use the 3rd row. I test drove the Tahoe, but honestly it felt like a land barge and I just couldn't do it after having a Volvo (not to mention lack of space behind the 3rd row). The Toyota is okay and it was great priced fully loaded and met our needs, but I still mourn the loss of my XC60 T6.

From the looks of pictures and dimensional comparison to my Highlander it looks like I'll be getting about 6"+ in the cargo area with all 3 rows up. My only concern is access to the 3rd row. Currently, the highlander can be configured with 2 captains seats and a pass thru to the 3rd row which makes it easy to get into for the kids and buckled up on their own without moving any seats around. I kind of ordered this on my past experience with my other Volvos and I'm sure hoping that it will meet all my expectations when it arrives.

I welcome any and all additional comments you have on the 3rd row and cargo dimensions with that row up. Thank you for sharing your info!

cab
04-06-2015, 04:59 PM
I think Volvo is ahead of the curve here in many respects. The whole "The end is nigh, the end is nigh!" cries over on the BMW forums when the 4 banger appeared in the 3 and 5 series have mostly died down. One local BMW dealer shows to have 60 3 series on the lot, with 50 of those being the 4 cylinders (and 15 of those the bottom of the line 320i series). In the next generation we will definitely see the 3 cylinder turbo that is in the new Mini Cooper. This same dealer has 15 X3s...13 with the 4 cylinder and only 2 with the six. While the X5 doesn't have a 4 banger, that is right around the corner.

In general, what Americans REALLY seem to prefer is "the biggest vehicle they can get for the cheapest price". We buy TVs the same way (pause for a moment of silence in remembrance of the awesome Pioneer, Panasonic and Samsung Plasma TVs). These big family SUVs aren't the same as the pickup truck market where V8 "bragging rights" come into play for the average buyer, and heck even then, Ford touts the Ecoboost like it is the second coming (with their own marginal real world mileage numbers btw). These big luxury SUVs are sold to soccer moms a-go-go (wealthier ones mind you) and the whole 8 vs. 6 vs. 4 debate likely just won't matter. What it will do is lower Volvo's costs with more shared engines, and that can lower the price of the car - and buyers will DEFINITELY appreciate that. Heck, how often do you see folks on these forums cross-shopping Volvo with German brands? Pretty common. If they go with Volvo, they almost always note it to be "considerably cheaper" than the German counterparts and that factors into their decison.

In terms of real world performance, the Volvo weighs in at 4394 lbs vs. the X5's 4790 lbs (3.5 version) - that's a hefty 400 lbs delta. Heck, the X3 with the 6 cylinder is only 164 lbs lighter than the XC90. It may perform much more like the lighter X3.

It will be months before we know for sure, but I suspect the T6 drivetrains might perform a tad better than their numbers suggest given American's propensity for freeway travel, but honestly, anything floating in that mid 20s range, for me, is all basically the same # - I just don't care when the numbers are that close. Even if it is overblown (no pun intended) from an MPG standpoint (as with Ford's Ecoboost), will most buyers care? (note: the enthusiasts among us - me included - might, but we aren't most buyers). The enthusiast buyer is probably looking at the X5 50, Cayenne or one of the M or AMG cars anyway, and not even considering the XC90 or Q7 - these guys want to be driving M3s and M5s, but their "families" made them choose an SUV. :)


As previously stated, I am a fan of electric now, and personally think electric motors can do a great job supplementing smaller engines by providing a nice shove of torque while that little engine is spooling up, etc.

I'm sorry, what was the question again?

goVolvo
04-06-2015, 05:29 PM
I think Volvo is ahead of the curve here in many respects. The whole "The end is nigh, the end is nigh!" cries over on the BMW forums when the 4 banger appeared in the 3 and 5 series have mostly died down. One local BMW dealer shows to have 60 3 series on the lot, with 50 of those being the 4 cylinders (and 15 of those the bottom of the line 320i series). In the next generation we will definitely see the 3 cylinder turbo that is in the new Mini Cooper. This same dealer has 15 X3s...13 with the 4 cylinder and only 2 with the six. While the X5 doesn't have a 4 banger, that is right around the corner.

In general, what Americans REALLY seem to prefer is "the biggest vehicle they can get for the cheapest price". We buy TVs the same way (pause for a moment of silence in remembrance of the awesome Pioneer, Panasonic and Samsung Plasma TVs). These big family SUVs aren't the same as the pickup truck market where V8 "bragging rights" come into play for the average buyer, and heck even then, Ford touts the Ecoboost like it is the second coming (with their own marginal real world mileage numbers btw). These big luxury SUVs are sold to soccer moms a-go-go (wealthier ones mind you) and the whole 8 vs. 6 vs. 4 debate likely just won't matter. What it will do is lower Volvo's costs with more shared engines, and that can lower the price of the car - and buyers will DEFINITELY appreciate that. Heck, how often do you see folks on these forums cross-shopping Volvo with German brands? Pretty common. If they go with Volvo, they almost always note it to be "considerably cheaper" than the German counterparts and that factors into their decison.

In terms of real world performance, the Volvo weighs in at 4394 lbs vs. the X5's 4790 lbs (3.5 version) - that's a hefty 400 lbs delta. Heck, the X3 with the 6 cylinder is only 164 lbs lighter than the XC90. It may perform much more like the lighter X3.

It will be months before we know for sure, but I suspect the T6 drivetrains might perform a tad better than their numbers suggest given American's propensity for freeway travel, but honestly, anything floating in that mid 20s range, for me, is all basically the same # - I just don't care when the numbers are that close. Even if it is overblown (no pun intended) from an MPG standpoint (as with Ford's Ecoboost), will most buyers care? (note: the enthusiasts among us - me included - might, but we aren't most buyers). The enthusiast buyer is probably looking at the X5 50, Cayenne or one of the M or AMG cars anyway, and not even considering the XC90 or Q7 - these guys want to be driving M3s and M5s, but their "families" made them choose an SUV. :)


As previously stated, I am a fan of electric now, and personally think electric motors can do a great job supplementing smaller engines by providing a nice shove of torque while that little engine is spooling up, etc.

I'm sorry, what was the question again?

Friendly reminder: question is some people prefer to 6cyl, especially when Drive-E mpg is not significantly better.
Frankly we don't know how many potential buyers are from this group of 6cyl lovers though.

cab
04-06-2015, 07:37 PM
Friendly reminder: question is some people prefer to 6cyl, especially when Drive-E mpg is not significantly better.
Frankly we don't know how many potential buyers are from this group of 6cyl lovers though.

Yes, just a little tongue-in-cheek on my part with regard to the question. I would probably count myself among those who would opt up for the 6 cylinder (historically, I've always gone for the "big" engine), and it will be interesting to see if the "buyers" voice a preference. If I'm not mistaken, there will be a T5 version introduced later on. I could see it being the "big seller" despite this being a large "luxury" SUV. On that note, I wonder if there will be a material difference in mpg between a T5 and T6 XC90.

9Volvos
04-06-2015, 10:51 PM
Yannis had previously stated that the T6 would not only better X5 35i but also X5 3.0D if I recall correctly, so whats the deal with those numbers?


That's the scary thing.

Volvo has already broken so many promises the only fair questions"which other promises have been broken or will be that we don't know about yet."

hastee
04-07-2015, 02:15 AM
That's the scary thing.

Volvo has already broken so many promises the only fair questions"which other promises have been broken or will be that we don't know about yet."

+1 the game of keeping attention on volvo seems to be like the old saw, saying, "when all is said and done, more is said than done". volvo has not produced what has been "suggested" will be, but "this is what you will get and like it".

Linqid
04-07-2015, 03:33 AM
When and where did Volvo state that the T6 will get better numbers than the X5 35i/30d? I have never seen an official statement saying such thing.

goVolvo
04-07-2015, 06:03 AM
When and where did Volvo state that the T6 will get better numbers than the X5 35i/30d? I have never seen an official statement saying such thing.

It is within this forum only. No worries. I don't even recall any official Volvo press release to compare T6 gas mileage with others.

volvokhaled
04-07-2015, 06:07 AM
That's the scary thing.

Volvo has already broken so many promises the only fair questions"which other promises have been broken or will be that we don't know about yet."

What other promises have been broken? I don't recall them promising anything in the first place...

goVolvo
04-07-2015, 06:33 AM
What other promises have been broken? I don't recall them promising anything in the first place...

I understand FE buyers that their cars are shipped after dealer demo cars, and power 3rd row is not available, and delay of delivery. But it is in another thread. It is not about mileage. The term "First Edition" tends to be perceived as "First 1927 new XC90 produced", which is actually not exactly the same.

IIHS
04-07-2015, 07:47 AM
Pattyweb... you live in a different world. A world of healthy criticism and arguments. I also wonder why Volvo has brought so much attention to what might be considered its weakest properties. If it had been my call, I would have focused on other attributes ... perhaps stronger, longer lasting under body systems. Not a four cylinder engine with fore and aft induction fans ... and headlights with names. If fewer cylinders makes so much sense, why not leap ahead to ONE cylinder? I could lend them my push mower engine for experimentation. I use to be a Volvo Fan with full credentials ... but with ownership pain, I have been turned away. Looking forward to your postings.
.
Aircraft engines for small airframes? I always found this interesting: .. http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/homebuilt-aircraft/subaru-aircraft-engines.php

Good points here. If I had that kind of pull, the focus would have been on reliability: in the engine, the transmission, and in the electrical systems. It's not like building a car that'll go to 200,000 miles with basic maintenance is some kind of mystery to Volvo; until the 90s ended, that had been one of their points of pride. Nowadays, a quick scan of the forums shows very few people are willing to keep these machines that long. In that respect, I suppose Volvo is just trying to emulate Audi, BMW, Mercedes, etc (albeit on a much smaller budget).

pattyweb
04-07-2015, 07:56 AM
I don't even recall any official Volvo press release to compare T6 gas mileage with others.

I agree, Volvo has never compared to others. The message was 6 cylinder power and performance but with 4 cylinder fuel efficiency. The formula works in the S/V 60s, but the bigger the car gets, the fuel efficiency part of the formula seems to start breaking down quickly.

Should Volvo introduce a T5 FWD XC90, that will be the class leading mpg SUV Volvo has been talking about. I would guess that could hit 24-26 mpg combined on REGULAR gas. Based on the XC60s T5 0-60 of 9.1 seconds, we'll have to wait and see what the T5 XC90 is capable of.

GrecianVolvo
04-07-2015, 12:46 PM
Based on the XC60s T5 0-60 of 9.1 seconds, we'll have to wait and see what the T5 XC90 is capable of.
The XC60 T5 Drive-E does not take 9.1 secs to accelerate from 0-60; only Edmunds has measured it at this time interval, not sure how they performed the tests. The T6 Drive does it in 6.3 secs and the T5 will do it between 6.9 and 7.1 secs

pattyweb
04-07-2015, 01:10 PM
The XC60 T5 Drive-E does not take 9.1 secs to accelerate from 0-60; only Edmunds has measured it at this time interval, not sure how they performed the tests. The T6 Drive does it in 6.3 secs and the T5 will do it between 6.9 and 7.1 secs

You're right. I had googled XC60 T5 0-60 and read the summary. Looks like google combined the summary from different parts. The 9.1 estimate in the summary next to T5 was actually for the 3.2 6cyl AWD. The T5 DriveE FWD estimate is 6.9.

Paradox
04-07-2015, 01:21 PM
I would wait for the fueleconomy.gov mpg ratings. On the German Volvo website XC90 is rated at 9.6l city, 6.6l hwy while bmw.de rates the x5 with a 3.0l engine at 11.2l city, 6.9l hwy. fueleconomy.gov rates bmw x5 xdrive 3.0 at 13.1l (18mpg) city, 8.7l (27mpg) hwy. I would expect the xc90 at least match the x5 hwy mileage.


I've been checking there as well as Volvo's website nearly every day so once they're listed there I'll add them into this thread. I've actually been waiting...





Well, it's up on the fueleconomy.gov (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=36149) website as of a short time ago:

http://i.imgur.com/b7AayPr.jpg

Paradox
04-07-2015, 01:24 PM
Well, they got this wrong.....

http://i.imgur.com/qQhWGtr.jpg

Leonh712
04-07-2015, 06:02 PM
Fuel is very cheap in the US and we don't pay additional taxes based on the weight, seating capacities, fuel type, or vehicle classes driven here. As a result, manufacturers equate horsepower, size, and speed with masculinity, which leads to people believing they can't tow, drive, or do much of anything if they don't have giant beasts of vehicles.

Yep. I'm a Londoner by birth but I'm the DFW Metro now. Was having a conversation with a co-worker (who not coincidentally owned a Manual V8 Mustang), and we were discussing what car we'd like to own in future realistically. He was very much of the opinion that every man should aspire to own a pick up truck of some description, and if they're any sort of man, a bigger one, so like an F350 or Tundra. When I asked why, he said, "You know, so you can move stuff around if you need to". I just couldn't get my head around this, why pay for all that extra fuel to keep a flat bed attached to your vehicle that will usually be empty? I know the convenience is nice, but U-Haul has like 90983098430984 locations in the US, it's not like it's ever going to be hard to find a suitable vehicle for haulage needs.

I aspire to own a hybrid 5 or 7 seater with rear A/C for my daughters. It also needs to be safe. If it can also haul big loads or get up to 60 in some short time, great, but my family comes first.

12Ounce
04-07-2015, 07:02 PM
A small utility trailer will couple up and do most of the hauling work any of us need. Requires little storage space (tilted up on end) ... and usually costs little in insurance and licensing fees. But I also understand the "need" for a truck! Would love to have a new diesel F250!

adp
04-07-2015, 07:07 PM
Yep. I'm a Londoner by birth but I'm the DFW Metro now. Was having a conversation with a co-worker (who not coincidentally owned a Manual V8 Mustang), and we were discussing what car we'd like to own in future realistically. He was very much of the opinion that every man should aspire to own a pick up truck of some description, and if they're any sort of man, a bigger one, so like an F350 or Tundra. When I asked why, he said, "You know, so you can move stuff around if you need to". I just couldn't get my head around this, why pay for all that extra fuel to keep a flat bed attached to your vehicle that will usually be empty? I know the convenience is nice, but U-Haul has like 90983098430984 locations in the US, it's not like it's ever going to be hard to find a suitable vehicle for haulage needs.

I aspire to own a hybrid 5 or 7 seater with rear A/C for my daughters. It also needs to be safe. If it can also haul big loads or get up to 60 in some short time, great, but my family comes first.

welcome to America - the land founded on taking care of your self-interest by people who have no idea what their self-interest is

the truck example is a perfect illustration

adp
04-07-2015, 07:09 PM
A small utility trailer will couple up and do most of the hauling work any of us need. Requires little storage space (tilted up on end) ... and usually costs little in insurance and licensing fees. But I also understand the "need" for a truck! Would love to have a new diesel F250!

you cain't pull a stump with a utility trailer, boss

nh_ets
04-08-2015, 08:46 AM
Official numbers and range now on the EPA site, including combined mileage of 22 mpg and 414 mi range.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=36149

Paradox
04-08-2015, 08:59 AM
Official numbers and range now on the EPA site, including combined mileage of 22 mpg and 414 mi range.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=36149

I just posted this yesterday a few posts up in this thread (https://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?227361-2016-XC90-Fuel-Economy-numbers-are-on-the-Volvo-site-today&p=2497329&viewfull=1#post2497329), pic and all. :)


Well, it's up on the fueleconomy.gov (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=36149) website as of a short time ago:

http://i.imgur.com/b7AayPr.jpg

and


Well, they got this wrong.....

http://i.imgur.com/qQhWGtr.jpg

PhatboyC
04-08-2015, 10:31 AM
So it confirms the numbers are with premium fuel. I wonder what is the fuel economy with regular.

nh_ets
04-08-2015, 10:40 AM
That is an important question - what is the usual decrease?

VolvoFaRmeR
04-08-2015, 01:33 PM
Oh man....don't open up THAT can of worms..... :eek:

Teflon
04-08-2015, 10:19 PM
The hwy mpg is a bit disappointing. I was hoping it could do better than my 2010 e350 4matic. Still, I chose xc90 inscription over RR Sport and x5 3.0. I prefer its safety, great interior and the looks

SaintDuPree
04-09-2015, 12:44 AM
Glass 1/2 Full-> http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2016-volvo-xc90-awd-gets-improved-fuel-economy.html

God Bless

Adrian-C30R
04-09-2015, 01:13 AM
So it confirms the numbers are with premium fuel. I wonder what is the fuel economy with regular.

Who runs a +300HP +50K SUV on regular?!

Bmo Pete
04-09-2015, 11:29 AM
Who runs a +300HP +50K SUV on regular?!

Don't forget.. one with direct injection, a turbo and a supercharger. You may wonder if you bought a diesel from the sound of things under the hood. I get your point about caring about saving a few bucks on fuel when you're into a car for over 50 large. Besides, I don't believe Volvo recommends regular octane for the T6 or T8 for optimal running.

rfkuehn
04-09-2015, 02:13 PM
If someone is trying to game octane ratings/cost, then maybe it's the wrong car/market for them.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to a bit disappointed if you wanted greater fuel efficiency, it's a smarter attribute that some people may desire on its own merits.

Adrian-C30R
04-09-2015, 03:04 PM
Don't forget.. one with direct injection, a turbo and a supercharger. You may wonder if you bought a diesel from the sound of things under the hood. I get your point about caring about saving a few bucks on fuel when you're into a car for over 50 large. Besides, I don't believe Volvo recommends regular octane for the T6 or T8 for optimal running.

+1

PhatboyC
04-11-2015, 09:21 AM
Oh no I didn't mean to open a can of worms with my question. By no means it implied that if I end up with the XC90 I would put in regular fuel. I just never realize this engine was needing premium when I first starting comparing it to other SUV early in the process. Its obvious to me now when you think about the supercharger and turbo.

But here is my rub with premium. This coming from someone who prefers premium fuel over regular any day for its increased in detergent and sometimes in my region no ethanol. My sports car requires premium and I am happy to oblige. But that is because when I was shopping for a sports car, for me fuel economy had a low priority being a second vehicle.

Now, one could say the same for the SUV class. But with today's technology and an SUV is my daily driver, fuel economy is higher on my priority list when comparing. I was attracted at the Q7 for its diesel (I say was cause seeing the 2016 kind of put me off by its looks :facepalm:). One could have its cake and eat it too without spending even more for hybrid as diesels SUV are cheaper to purchase. So if I'm going to pay a bit higher at the pump for diesel at least the economy more than makes up for it. Now with the XC90 its not the case. Fuel economy might be better than lets say compared to a Durango, but the difference is not enough. You end up paying more in fuel per km travelled (premium is allot more at the pumps here) than the lower tech but similar size Durango.

Adrian-C30R
04-11-2015, 04:53 PM
Does a few bucks matter when you're spending over 50K on an SUV? That's my question. Also, why would an SUV have a higher priority for fuel economy than a sports car (which has MANY things in its favor when talking about fuel economy) when a sports car is hundreds, if not thousands of pounds lighter with very similar power as today's luxury SUVs? The other thing is that why is it okay to pay a substantial premium for a diesel engine (over a non-hybrid gasoline one) when diesel fuel is also more expensive than premium (as well as having a worse performing engine on top of that!) when your justification is saving money?

citivas
04-11-2015, 05:17 PM
Does a few bucks matter when you're spending over 50K on an SUV? That's my question. Also, why would an SUV have a higher priority for fuel economy than a sports car (which has MANY things in its favor when talking about fuel economy) when a sports car is hundreds, if not thousands of pounds lighter with very similar power as today's luxury SUVs? The other thing is that why is it okay to pay a substantial premium for a diesel engine (over a non-hybrid gasoline one) when diesel fuel is also more expensive than premium (as well as having a worse performing engine on top of that!) when your justification is saving money?

Diesel around where I live is about on par in price with premium gas, at least at the moment. Both are $0.40-$0.50 per gallon more. What exactly do you mean by "worse performing engine"? I guess it's down to your definition of performing. If you mean fuel efficiency, diesel would perform better, much better, for about the same cost per gallon.

Still, at about $250 more in fuel costs a year, I agree it's hard to see it as a showstopper versus the cost of the vehicle. At that point it becomes a question of what you are prioritizing to get the luxury vehicle overall versus less luxury but more fuel efficient three row crossover SUV's.

Adrian-C30R
04-11-2015, 06:02 PM
Diesel around where I live is about on par in price with premium gas, at least at the moment. Both are $0.40-$0.50 per gallon more. What exactly do you mean by "worse performing engine"? I guess it's down to your definition of performing. If you mean fuel efficiency, diesel would perform better, much better, for about the same cost per gallon.

When I say "worse performing" I mean: Less refined, more NVH, worse power/torque curves, and lower rev limiters compared to gasoline engines. All undesirable things. Which is why I don't get the point of an expensive diesel car in the U.S. since diesel is often much more expensive than even premium gasoline. Premium gas is 20 cents more expensive where I live (compared to regular 87), but diesel is about 45-65 cents more expensive.

adp
04-11-2015, 06:16 PM
Diesel around where I live is about on par in price with premium gas, at least at the moment. Both are $0.40-$0.50 per gallon more. What exactly do you mean by "worse performing engine"? I guess it's down to your definition of performing. If you mean fuel efficiency, diesel would perform better, much better, for about the same cost per gallon.

Still, at about $250 more in fuel costs a year, I agree it's hard to see it as a showstopper versus the cost of the vehicle. At that point it becomes a question of what you are prioritizing to get the luxury vehicle overall versus less luxury but more fuel efficient three row crossover SUV's.

Diesel is about $.20-.30 less than premium, here

then there are stations where diesel is $.50 MORE than premium

Paradox
04-11-2015, 06:26 PM
then there are stations where diesel is $.50 MORE than premium

Here in NYC Costco has regular for $2.44 and premium for $2.74. They don't have diesel but the Hess nearby has it for $3.30. Ouch, diesel is $0.56 more than premium around here.

adp
04-11-2015, 06:55 PM
Here in NYC Costco has regular for $2.44 and premium for $2.74. They don't have diesel but the Hess nearby has it for $3.30. Ouch, diesel is $0.56 more than premium around here.

That isn't true. You may be comparing a high diesel price with a low premium price.

There is diesel for as little as $2.79 in NYC
http://www.newyorkgasprices.com/index.aspx?fuel=D

I was looking at stations that sell both

there's pretty wide variability, it seems. At least in my zip code.

Paradox
04-11-2015, 07:10 PM
That isn't true.

I got the price for the station closest to me, so it is true. I didn't look for other stations but that does not make the price of it where I live false.