Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I inderstand Lexus has a touch screen which is easier to use, but I believe the Volvo system is among the best available. It has been EXTREMELY accurate and the voice instructions are precise and helpful
The antenna is actually hidden under a plastic roof panel!
At some point I'll lose patience and get XM, and put a modulator system in each of our cars. But if I can get a direct connection in the Volvo its worth waiting for.
#1 Acura - by a significant margin
#2 Lexus
#3 BMW / Mercedes (tie)
#4 Volvo
After seeing the Acura's 8" screen, the Volvo's 6.5" sreen looks very small. Perhpas you get used to it after a while, but I also found the further viewing distance on the dash more difficult to read than the center console.
Yes, but by the time you sell or trade it in 3D holographic heads up nav systems will be standard and those primitive ancient systems may end up costing you resale value! :-)
tidester, host
The cost doubles in some cases though.
Nav has very little impact on resale, its a toy basically. A nice toy but a toy nonetheless.
Sat radio is unavailable from Volvo now. Rumors are swirling that Volvo will offer it on 2005 model cars, but no confirmation of that.
But for volvo, IMHO, the screen is well position so I don't have to move my head much to look at it. And I can keep my eyes on the road while I do a quick glance. And the voice is very helpful, too. The radio volume will automatically lower when the voice comes in.
And I got some question for habitat1:
When you compare those nav., did you test them out while driving or just stationary?
How much is the head movement for the center console one?
Thanks in advance for your response. This will help me to see how the volvo is rated. By the way, I don't think volvo DVD rear-entertainment worth the money.
Get your directions on a piece of paper before you go, or if you on a trip - spend a day planning it. $2K is a steep price for the little additional convenience.
How often would you use a $2000 nav system vs how often would you use a radio, seat htr etc?
If I'm spending my $$$ I pass on the Nav sys.
There's always Rand-McNally
The physical design & interface--except for the DVD drive under the seat where it gets kicked--is outstanding. Easy & safe. Some people like touch screens or voice command offered by other systems, but these have problems and some systems do not even allow input while moving. The VNS buttons always work and you keep your hands on the wheel and your eyes toward the road. Alternately, the passenger can operate the VNS with a remote.
The display is just the right size and has some nifty features like a split screen to show both the big picture & detail. Ample warning of a turn, diagrams of intersections, route avoidance, spontaneous rerouting if you miss a turn, linked destinations, spur-of-the moment searches for a gas station, time to destination--it does much more than paper maps and is more convenient & safer to use than dash-mounted handhelds.
It really empowers you to travel through heavy traffic in an unfamiliar area and be able to pay attention to your driving and what's going on around you instead of fussing around to read the fine print on a paper map (try this at night!), straining to read poor road signs, and worrying what lane you need to be in.
The main problem is a skimpy data base. Big metro areas are covered pretty well but in smaller cities and in the country there are often only major roads and a few POIs (points of interest). Check to make sure that where you go is covered or you could be winging it or be directed by the VNS in a less-than-direct route.
A toy? From the perspective that other ways of navigation can be used, the VNS is not essential. Of course, the same thing could be said of the car itself in many situations. It all depends on how you use it. The VNS is a worthwhile tool for some people. Probably not most. Consider your situation and whether you will make the effort to use its features.
Another question: are those of you with the nav system with RTS satisfied with its ability to guide you around traffic jams? Is it time-efficient in steering you towards less-traveled routes for a faster way around the traffic?
Overall, it is a somewhat clunky system with hard to use controls that you eventually get used to...the database can be spotty and directions may be off a bit... making small adjustments (muting the system or changing to off highway) force you to go through menu after menu a real pain.
Having said that, it is a toy that I would not now do without. It has saved me many times. I don't have to ask for directions...etc etc. I do recommend it... unless you can get the Acura system put in your volvo!!!
One of our neighbors bought an XC90 last year and after miserable performance (their assessment) in the DC area snow and ice, the dealership replaced the tires free of charge with a deeper tread, higher profile tire (not sure of brand). It helped, but they are still considering selling the XC90 in favor of a more serious SUV. Even with the better winter tires, they had some difficulties with getting to and from their winter vacation home in western Maryland. They had traded out of an old Landcruiser and are now considering the GX470.
Guy
Even though my Acura nav. is older version, its functionality is better than that of lexus. My Acura navi even shows the height of your position.
I tried notebook version of navigation system. However, it is extremely inconvenient to assemble and disassemble whenever you get in and out of your car (You need to connect/disconnect power supply, GPS sensor, and computer. Then, put them in a computer bag).
I also used PDA based navi. system. This is a better choice than the notebook in terms of portability. I still use this when I travel and rent a car. However, the computing is still too much for PDAs. Thus, it takes too much time to recalculate a new route when you miss a turn. Also, the voice is too small, such that you need to turn off your audio to listen to the direction.
I definitely used conventional map and mapquest.com. Unfortunately, you cannot read the road sign during the night, especially, street name signs are too small and not located conveniently when you browse the road scene. Also, it is extremely difficult to use the printed direction during the night when you drive alone.
It is true that you will not need a navigation system to commute to your work. However, when you need to go to your boss's party foggy or rainy night, the navigation system is a great help.
I also use the marked point feature to record the positions where the cops are waiting for you.
what is the marked point feature you are talking about??
We bought the two piece liner for the back from the dealer after we saw it in the dealer owner's XC90. We have the 7 passenger model. It seems to do a good enough job of protecting the back and providing a non-skid surface. But, like mentioned before, the larger piece would need to be removed to have the third row seats up. Or the smaller piece is in the way of using the fold-open flap with the grocery bag hooks.
I thought about removing it altogether, and just putting it in when needed, but I figure it is better off laying flat in the car and just deal with it when it is in the way.
The XC90 has done just fine in all the comparos re snow and ice, so I have to trust the experts.
seriously, I like using paper maps. I like that more than mapquest or any alternative, but maps are dangerous when alone (reading and driving) and aren't perfect when driving at night. If you can afford a nav system, you should buy one. If not, then please do invest in a AAA membership and keep your maps updated in your car. Getting lost can be dangerous or at least very tiresome and stressful, eh?
:-)
One of the features of the XC90 that sold me in the first place was it's versatility in options on seating (each seat except drivers folds flat and each moves independently of the others), and now it is really paying off!
Regards,
Bruce
CS, CO
Can not agree with you more. (See some of my comments from late February - early March). That what our family feel about Volvo - just right amount of status statement along with great styling, unsurpassed safety, thorough engineering, much better than average versatility, very decent handling and performance and satisfactory reliability - the perfect mix for us.
There are better cars in any single category, except for safety, where Volvo is a champ, but we could not find one with the same balanced blend.
Very quiet down the road at 130 km/hre (80 mph), well built, very comfortable. Fuel consumption is marginal in town (hey, it's a 4,500 lbs vehicle!) but good on highway and secondary roads.
Found out that the seat and mirror memories are linked to the remotes. That may explain why some people mention that the seats had a mind of their own.
We love the interior versatility and the looks in Saphire Black.
Please do not take that "snobby" label personally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with driving BMW, as well as MB, RR, Bentleys, etc. any of those well known brands. And there is nothing wrong of having ego too. I do believe that the car someone drives does describe that person. And BMW appeals to more ambitious drivers.
We all make statements by the cars we drive, whether we want it or not.
So drive your BMW and Volvo and be happy and proud of that.
I have jumped into the discussion earlier (and have been criticized quite a bit) for saying, that people chose Volvo for different reasons than Honda and Toyota, and straight comparison of HP, "" of leg room and reliability %% can not explain why people chose one car over the other.
The only point I will probably argue, is the statement that people always drive something that they can afford. I know enough people for whom the social statement was too important and they would sacrifice a lot of common needs but drive an expensive "show off banner"
Thank you for your response. You have valid points. I agree that we do make statements by the cars we drive if we want to or not. It just bothers me sometimes when people group all drivers of a certain make of car into one giant vat. Like you we bought our XC90 because it had the balanced blend that we were looking for.
http://www.stormloader.com/groupb/photos/205t161.jpg
Regards,
Bruce
I am afraid to disappoint you, but in the eyes of many readers of this board you are definitely stepping up, moving from Honda Odyssey to Volvo XC90.
So, please do concede that you are just about to join a club of minimal "snobs", who drive upscale ($45K XC90 is definitely more expensive than $32K Pilot) cars and proud of it. :-))
Thank God for the Pirelli Winter Scorpions!
Guy
Guy
The goal of this board in my mind to express your opinions, but that applies some responsibilities, namely, when you describe some anecdotal situation or state an opinion, you have to define clearly the conditions. Way too often those "opinions" sound like the universal facts.
This particular discussion is a perfect example:
Oh yes, it's just tires, and Santa Fe (meaning "simple" car) on better rubber circles around "sophisticated" XC90 on standard rubber, omitting that Hyundai makes every effort (within their abilities) to provide the most sophisticated power train possible.
Quaddies is right, in winter you are probably better off with good winter tires on a FWD than an AWD on 4 seasons. All these sophisticated systems only make the best of the available traction; they do not create traction. It is not "just" tires, but they make a BIG difference.
Last winter I rented a Legacy for 2 weeks for my work during the winter. It had winter tires but crummy ones. I'm a good driver on snow (5 driving years in Labrador + 28 in Quebec will do that to you) Being passed on the outside lane in a curve by a FWD Jetta convinced me I had bad tires!
On the XC90 with the Michelin's on dry snow was not too bad; it is on wet snow that things got a little sketchy. Acceleration from a stop was good, it was turning and braking that was marginal; a clear indication I was running on the wrong tires. If we would only doing drag racing I could agree with you Lev but driving involves turning and braking too.
I was glad to hear from another owner that he had the same situation last fall on his XC90 but that using the Pirelli Winters was like night and day.
Youre right, the Santa Fe do not compare at all to the XC90 in terms of refinement. My point was only to show that quaddies was right in mentioning the importance of winter tires in the snow belt.
Guy (and it is still snowing today...)
As for comparing vehicle traction in dicey situations, I have found the XC90 to be outstanding with the stock tires both on-pavement and off. Remember that the XC90 won several "mud fests" against all types of SUVs & pickups, and even embarrased the Touareg in a snow-covered hill climb.
I would never discount the importance of appropriate tires, and yes, DSTC does not create a traction it's just makes the best of it.
My comments were meant to compensate for the overstatement that the new stability systems are good for nothing. I am looking for the practical advices on this board and want to know all the aspects of the issue. And one of the issues that I would like to understand is - Should I budget for the winter tires?
With your messages I and I think many others have finally gotten the more balanced view. Now I have my answer - more likely - not, the conditions that I am going drive under do not warrant such extra expense.
Personally, ever since I've got my S80 with DSTC four years ago (FWD with All season Michelin), I've stopped using chains going to the Mammoth Lake ski resort. The take off from standstill is great (that is the area where proper torque management is crucial), the turning is manageable, the braking is marginal (at some point your wheels stop rotating, while you still have some momentum, and DSTC can only "operate" with the rotating wheels), so I slow down a bit. I would imagine that AWD XC90 is going to be even better. I will testify to that later this year when I pick mine up in Gothenburg in June.
I had about 15 years of "real" winter driving back in USSR, but back then I had a simplistic RWD, then simple FWD (which was a great improvement). And since that time I keep a conviction that FWD is safer in most driving conditions than RWD.
Last 14 years - very dry Los Angeles with occasional (from 2 to 5,6 a year) trips to Mammoth.
Nice! Have a great time.
> Last 14 years - very dry Los Angeles with occasional (from 2 to 5,6 a year) trips to Mammoth.
Driven there many times in all kinds of weather. Carry chains & a shovel in the winter.
The all wheel drive system of course was invented by Audi in the early 1980's in the heyday of Group B rally racing. Prior to that everything in Group B was rear wheel drive and no more that 200 HP, because anything more was wasted as the rear tires started to spin. Audi developed the allwheel drive technology and all of a sudden racing teams could take adavantage of massive increases in amounts of torque and horsepower because the technology could deliver the power to the wheel with the greatest traction at a given point in time. In the end they were getting close to something like 500 HP in a Peugot 205. Yikes. People started to crash and die. End of Group B rally racing.
Two points from this. The advantage of all wheel drive allows for taking advantage of greater power delivered to the wheels without have them spin out. But with all this new speed drivers could not stop the car any better than before. Thus people started to die in spectacular crashes. For highend car makers it has been a good selling point. And it is is fascinating technology. But more important than tires, I humbly disagree.
Back to where this all started. Someone stated that they were considering ditching a XC90 in the DC area for a Lexus 470 because of bad handling in a snow storm. I believe you will agree with me Lev, that swapping for Toyota's or Lexus' all wheel drive system will make little or no difference. Oh yes and good luck in Goteborg. I was there two years ago. Very pretty place.
Quaddies
Regards,
Bruce
I might be wrong, but I think that the modern all wheel drive systems, like one in XC90 is a bit more than just to have the four points of contact instead of two (One big disclaimer right here - I do agree that winter tires are better for the snow driving than all season ones).
What I have learned is that this system constantly monitors the wheels and transfers power to the wheel with the best traction, both - front-rear and left-right. I could see how such system can drastically improve handling under the winter conditions, and even more in conjunction with DSTC that will lightly brake or reduce torque to the spinning wheels.
Somehow I still believe, that if you will compare a middle of the road FWD (Honda Accord, let say) without STC and the AWD XC90 with DSTC riding on the same tires, the XC90 will perform better.
I would be really disappointed (wink-wink) if not. Otherwise, why do we all pay a big buck for all that technology, and why automakers "waste" billions of dollars for the ongoing development?
And I carry chains too, but made a promise (probably a stupid one) avoid them as much as possible. Thanks to the Volvo, I keep this promise for four years.
I have driven FWD (Nissan Stanza, Nissan Altima) and RWD (Mazda MPV) up to the mountains (Mammoth and Big Bear) and always had to put chains on, as the drive would be totally uncontrollable.
I would be honest, when I drove a Volvo S80 up there for the first time, hit the icy stretch of the road, ready for the problems, and nothing happened, but a subtle jolt of the steering wheel, and periodical blinks of the DSTC light on a dash board, I was amazed beyond believe. Since then I am a strong believer into the modern technology.
But that just my 2 cents.
Anyway, as quaddies said it is a nice city with good restaurants so enjoy!
Guy
The XC90 is the "cheapest" SUV on my shopping list, on an after tax basis. The Honda Pilot is next, since I can't fuly depreciate it for business in one year (under 6,000 lb GVW). Next is the Lexus GX470 (over 6,000 lb) and last - i.e. most expensive after tax - is the Acura MDX.
The idea of spending more - after tax - for a Pilot over a XC90 may sound like I am discrediting the attributes of the XC90. I am not, there are many things I like about it. However, I am still troubled by the far greater number of reported problems, and my concerns about long term reliability and maintenance issues. I have been spoiled by not having to spend much time taking cars in for service. I've also noticed in our area that 3-4+ year old Volvos have depreciated far more than their Acura (or BMW & Mercedes) counterparts. They are neck and neck with Infiniti on the worst resale of the "premium" brands.
My holdup on the GX470, believe it or not, is that it projects more of a "snob image" than I would prefer. But in my neck of the woods, that's no issue for Volvo. So if anyone can point me to OBJECTIVE information sources that rate the Volvo as a solid long term dependable vehicle, that's the direction I'm inclined to go.
:-)
But I think we are getting off subject...