By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Also, you have to be smoking some pretty strong stuff to think CR's sampling methods are great. There are several websites dedicated to the errors in their approach and the lack of published information in their methods. As a Six Sigma professional I deal in statistics every day. While CR is to be commended as they don't accept advertising dollars from car manufacturers I can assure you there are significant issues with their approach (which I've written about before and won't repeat here.)
That said, I do think their long-term studies are about as good as it gets in published rags. I have much bigger issues with their short-term ratings.
Also, for what it's worth, it shouldn't be a surprise that Mercedes, Volvo, etc. have below average ratings for 3 year old cars. These companies were the first to move to newer platforms, components, etc. In this case these particular companies got stinged when they moved to Closed Area Networks 4 years ago. Every luxury manufacturer has stumbled quality-wise upon introduction of new PLATFORMS (e.g., Lexus GS, Mercedes S class, Volvo S80, Saab 9-3, etc.). The fact of the matter is the latest cars have MANY more opportunities for failure and it's simply not possible to get everything perfect on a new platform and still introduce it to the market while it is fresh. Subsequent models on the same platform always show significant improvements but I don't see an easy solution to the new platform introduction problem.
In the case of Volvo, they are trending in the right direction as is to be expected for Mercedes, Audi, etc. (Volvo is now the highest rated Euro brand in the latest J.D. Powers INITIAL quality study which hopefully correlates well for long-term reliability.)
Thanks.
-rollie
http://www.nytimes.com/autos/index.html?8ato
Our basis for commenting is that we have put over 6,000 miles on our XC-90 T-6 in 2 1/2 months. The only complaint we have which is cited in the NYT article is the turbo whine or whistle which Volvo acknowledges is not acceptable (according to Volvo and our dealership, a fix is in the works and should be out in Apr/May '03). We live in Colorado and go up to the mountains all the time--this car is far superior to the Chevy Suburban we used to have--and the car is fine for trailering (we installed the trailer hitch soon after getting the car). It is also apparent that the NYT reviewer didn't watch the Motor Trend "car of the year" broadcast where the XC-90 did better at climbing a rough, steep hill than most of the other "traditional" SUVs. Even the MT people were surprised at how good the car was on the difficult off-road track. The only thing the XC-90 lacks for true off road is the ability to go to 4WD "low".
Like I said, interesting writeup in the NYT!
Can't please everyone, I suppose. I have to say that I do agree with the comment about the T6's steering, it was one of the reasons we changed to the 2.5T. We found the 2.5T to handle much "sportier." The steering on the T6 was too loose for me--felt like I was driving a land yaht--it's a personal preference thing, though. I've heard others describe it as a "cushier drive."
Sharon
The best leasing illustration first offered to me was with a money factor or 0.00320 and a 3 year/12k residual of 61%. I challenged it and after some back and forth discussion between the dealer and financing manager (whom I have never met), I was offered a money factor of 0.00295 with the same terms. I have been told this is 'rock-bottom' and there will be no further negotiation. Am I getting the best rate/leasing option? For someone with high credit scores (nearing 800), I was not satisfied. My XC90 is to be delivered this week and I must make a financing decision.
Are there outside (the dealership) leasing options available? I prefer to lease and not buy (finance) the vehicle. Is a money factor of 0.00295 (7.08%) reasonable for high credit score customers? Volvomax and others, I welcome your comments and advice. Thank you.
2003 Volvo XC90: Now, the Starbucks Utility Vehicle
Steve, Host
Acceleration: If you have never driven a turbo, you need to understand how a turbo accelerates. Quick description...from a standing start, you will feel "turbo lag" as the turbo spins up. This is why you have the Geartronic standard transmission to give you the option of staying in 1st gear when accelerating into fast-moving traffic. Accelerating while moving is incredible (turbos up and running).
Steering: Personal opinion is that it is all relative. Our other car is an S-80 T-6 which is a land rocket with tight steering. It is also built really low to the ground! The XC-90 is not, and never will be, a tight cornering performance car like the S-80 or <pick your favorite>. It does, however, blow the doors off of any other SUV I've driven, and I've driven most of them. You buy the XC-90 for the extreme utility and very good to excellent performance...a trade-off I'll make any day of the week.
NC
.00295 is a little high for someone with a high Isaac score.
Leases can also vary by region and by who your dealer is signed up with.
Some lenders have very good programs but not for all areas.
I'd find out from the dealer who they are planning to use, and who else they have available.
ny times... not sure what to make of the ny times article. to me, it seems the reviewer may have set out to not like it (as liking something that is popular to the suburbanite masses is probably not very chic to ny times staff;) example... a complaint about the cupholders getting in the way of the manual shifting... the way i see it, either you like the manual shifting or you don't, the cuphodlers are put in the most easily accessible place (i.e. safest)? armrest too far back? seems volvo actually designed an suv that is comfortable for tall people. seat folding unintuitive? is a lever really that complex? ever tried folding the seats on an m-class? didn't like the handling? i love the handling on my 2.5t... one of the biggest selling points... on par handling-wise with the x5... handling and braking are exceptional. and complaining the 5-cylinder is inadequate for a 4,000 lb vehicle without driving it? here is a reviewer that complains about gas mileage of a six cyclinder and writes off a smaller engine as being underpowered (how about a little credit for offering a nice engine that is not as worried about peak hp and gets a few more mpg?). and no mention of torque... a telling sign of lack of knowledge, or lack of desire to faithfully review something impartially. there is nothing wrong with disliking something because everybody else likes it... you should just be honest about it. this reviewer knocks xc-90 offroad ability and praises the x5 and mdx... complains about lack of spirited ride and praised the mdx and m-class... complains about gas mileage and knocks the smaller engine as underpowered (without driving it). the bottom line is that every reviewer has preconceptions, and writes the review with those in mind... if they really want to like something, they will likely focus on teh positives... otherwise the negatives... the best reviewer is the buyer... too many individual needs to assess.
A question to you happy US XC90 owners: Do the D-pillar extensions of the rear lights have any function, or are they purely a cosmetic addition? There are yet very few XC90's on the road over here in Europe, but from what I've seen (and indeed also from the XC90's visible at the dealers) that part of the rear light cluster seems to be a "dummy" which surprises me, as the signal effect to the rear would improve considerably if also that part of the cluster were active. Could any of you "alighten" me on this subject?
On another subject: Did you know that some 3,000 XC90's are lying in the Channel off the Belgian coast? The car freighter "Tricolor" sank after a colission on Dec 16, 2002 - and almost all of its load consisted of XC90's.
Cheers,
Birger
"The Institute tested one midsize SUV, Volvo's new XC90. "It was awful""
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Steve, Host
Steve, Host
"... Volvo said its damage totals were comparable to vehicles in its class. It also listed the XC90's safety features, including side-impact air bags and rollover stability control. ..."
Hope there's more to it, and I'm sure we'll hear some spin soon. Sure it's comparable to vehicles in the general mid-sized SUV class (Ford Explorer, Jeep Grand Cherokee):
http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/low_speed_midsuv.htm
But the damage average exceeds the Acura MDX (the best-performing bumper-bash vehicle tested by the IIHS), BMW X5, Lexus RX300, and Mercedes-Benz ML320. That's more the XC90's "class." It's rather amusing to hear Volvo defending the result by saying it's comparable to Explorers, etc.
The good news is that this means the IIHS offset front crash test result will be released soon (they're preceded by the announcement of the bumper bash test). Hopefully the XC90 will acquit itself quite well, as it's a much more meaningful test.
Steve, Host
Another Volvo problem though...A friend of mine had one of the first V70 wagons in 98/99. He got into a crash and it took 6-8 months before they got the replacement parts to fix his rear bumper area. I am not sure how Volvo is on supply now that it is with ford, but that seemed like a long time to me. Fortunately they gave him a loaner for the time.
-rollie
Nevertheless, Volvo should have done a better job with the bumpers. The IIHS methodology is public domain and Volvo must have known about what would happen, and the resulting buzz.
Also, Europe mandates pedestrian safe vehicles.
In other words, the front and rear of a car must give in a way to minimize the injury potential to a pedestrian if struck by the vehicle.
For reference please look at the Euro NCAP tests.
Ha, spoken like a true salesman of a vehicle that has gotten nailed on a test. The test is not "a joke," it just has to be taken in the right context. As pointed out before, it is the INSURANCE Institute of Highway Safety. Means you're liable for some costly damage if you have a nice little love tap. Insurance will cover it beyond the deductible if you have proper coverage, but it'll probably raise your rate too.
If the bumper "does nothing to damage away from the vehicle body", wouldn't that mean more impact against those sitting in the vehicle body than it otherwise would?
It does mean more impact against the body, but not necessarily more impact against those sitting in the vehicle. If a vehicle gets rear-ended at 30mph, how much force would a good bumper absorb rather than a bad bumper? Enough to make up for the full force of the collision? Probably not. It just means that the vehicle body, with its energy-absorbing crumple zones, absorb the damage. Not necessarily the occupants.
In other words, it's quite conceivable that a vehicle with poorly performing bumpers will protect its occupants better in a rear-end collision than a vehicle with great performing bumpers. Impossible to verify without an accurate rear-collision test, which IIHS, NHTSA, EuroNCAP, etc. do not have. However, I trust that Volvo has done a ton of internal crash tests and has designed the vehicle very well to absorb severe rear-end collisions with less injury. Volvo does a lot more extensive internal testing than many other manufacturers.
Still, with all its testing, you'd think Volvo would have designed bumpers that would be less costly to fix in a 5-mph collision.
- get the reverse radar system (preventative)
- have the trailer hitch installed (added protection?)
I ordered both a couple of weeks ago when my wife nearly backed into a parked truck. Also, we've been planning to mount a bike rack on the hitch.
1- no way i'm putting a bike rack on the back... i'd be tempted to use it, and replacing my bicycle after crushing its frame would likely cost more than rear bumper damage (and not be covered by insurance)... rear bike carriers for SUVs are for long trips and department store bicycles... keep it inside or go with a roof rack:)
2- many things go into an insurance company determining premiums for a car... including repair cost, safety features, likelihood of theft/vandalism and the obvious locale/driver record issues. as a make, volvo is among the cheapest cars to insure... the xc90 rates may change, but i'm paying only $100 more a year to insure my new $40k xc90 compared to the '95 integra it replaced ($5k value). looking at the TCO data for luxury suvs, only the aviator is predicted to have lower insurance costs (all entry-lux awd/4wd models):
lincoln aviator: $4858
volvo xc90: $4995
mercedes ml320: $5050
acura mdx: $5646
infiniti qx4: $5695
lexus rx330: $5740
bmx x5: $5826
LR discovery: $6015
maybe the bumper bash test will change this, who knows, as of right now, my insurance is much lower than i expected for this pricey a vehicle.
These can't be insurance premiums can they? Where do you live? My RX 300 was about
$1300. (Went to $3000 when my two teenagers started driving.)
facts are fact and emperical data is factual.
consumer reports is a yardstick to follow. it may not be absolute but it provides direction and a measure of results.
you can attack it but it remains a standard.
the only way for volvo to get out of the s....list is to get their act together and not do R & D with customers.....
mercedes is down because they have sacrificed their quality standards for mass market appeal and market share.
insurance premiuns---------where in the world do you pay these rates ?????????
i pay $1450. for a $43,000 saab in the worst area .
any other out there paying these rates ???/
new york times--------the aricle on the xc90 t6 reflected line by line my initial reaction to this car which i posted herein-----the only difference is that on my second test ride i enjoyed the t6 more and did not feel so bad about the steering---it felt like fun to drive in spite of everything.
have not driven the t5 yet and may not because i want the car for driving in the people's republic of vermont and i do need the power of the t6 for the mountains.
but the article revealed the truth about a complaint i had and it was with the 4 speed transmission----------they did not give us the 5 speed because it did not fit in the space....period.
thus,the mismatch.
a similar thing happened to the mb v12----they used the regular tranny from the v8 and they kept blowing up after a few miles of aggressive driving.--------i do not think that this will happen to the volvo but,it would be nice to have this 5 speed with the t6.............it will make it into a great suv.,not just mediocre.
OT
True Cost of Ownership (the numbers will vary depending on your zipcode).
Steve, Host
The bumper fares badly because of "give" for pedestrians? I doubt if you'll see 10-mph rear-end collisions against pedestrians too often, LOL, yet the XC90 rear bumper is clearly deficient.
If Volvo values pedestrian safety so much, why do current tested Volvos get the "average" score of two stars in the EuroNCAP Pedestrian safety test? Very few vehicles got three stars, though two of them were "lowly" Hondas. (One of which gets stellar bumper-bash tests with IIHS, though there are some bumper differences between Europe and the U.S. The other looks bad, but if not for Honda cheaping out on the rear bumper in favor of a gate-mounted spare, actually also does decently on the bumper basher).
The legal rules for tinting here in Ontario are 35% front and 15% rear. Is this pretty much standard (or above) in the U.S.? Considering the road trips I be taking throughout the U.S., I don't want to be pulled over and ticketed. Does anyone know the gradient percentage for the U.S. spec dark tint?
As well, does anyone have a preference for metallic or dark tint since I have choice? Would the metallic work well with my silver vehicle or cheesey? (For reference, the Lexus RX300s used metallic tinting in the rear.) Thanks for your opinions.
So, you got your XC90 already?
Just wait for tests of the XC90. I'm telling you this article made a big deal about how much give the bumpers give in a collision with a pedestrian.
And if you've ever tried to back the XC90 up without the reverse warning system you'd know why the rear bumper has to be compliant as well...almost zero visibility
OT
The bumper is but a single component of the XC90's pedestrian safety engineering. A bigger component is the hood which was designed to sit several inches over the engine and allow a pedestrian to hit a soft surface when they are flipped up onto the hood (assuming they don't end up under your tires!) This may sound like a minor thing but I've seen the video testing of dummies hitting the XC90's hood and it is much more effective than traditional (non) approaches.
Thanks.
-rollie
That's why in my original post I said "if Volvo values pedestrian safety so much, why do current tested Volvos get the "average" score of two stars in the EuroNCAP Pedestrian safety test."
Your point about it being more than the bumper is exactly mine. The bumper is just one component, there are more details to pedestrian safety. I highly doubt if it is a requirement to have bumpers which perform poorly in a bumper-basher test, in order to get high pedestrian safety. Sounds good from a marketing perspective, but look at how some of the vehicles that do well in EuroNCAP's pedestrian test have sturdier bumpers.
we'll just have to wait and see the ncap tests for pedestrians... the first round of ncap tests included volvos designed before they started doing those tests... volvo may have been behind the curve on this one, maybe not... the hondas that did well were designed after the first round... if i recall correctly, none of the cars tested in the first series met the requirements, and none got more than 2/4 stars... another possibility is that to engage the safety system for car-bumper-height compatibility, the bumper cannot be too stiff (less the car ride under the bumper). everything is a tradeoff: contrary to some beliefs here, volvo engineers are probably not negligent in design of bumpers. mid/full size suvs represent an entirely different problem than mini-utes and cars... a higher bumper will cause submarining of other vehicles in an accident, something SUVs are frequently criticized for... trying to attack car-collision-compatability and pedestrian safety may necessitate a 'soft' bumper for an SUV, who knows?... i certainly don't have the dynamic models in front of me to run a test.
but,in my car i use the lightest material out there but with the highest heat blocking factor.
this way i can see out of the window at night.
the ideal,again is for you to get the highest heat blocking factor with the highest light transmission.
to do otherwise is silly because you are blocking good light from coming in,you are sacrificing night visibility ,and you are not blocking any more heat from entering the car than you can with the new lighter tints
i have this in all of my cars and works fine in south florida.
... volvo may have been behind the curve on this one, maybe not... the hondas that did well were designed after the first round ...
Please note, however, that the Civic that did well was a model introduced in 2001. Wasn't the S60 (two stars) introduced in the same model year? Sure, the S60 is based on the older S80 but so is the XC90.
And the older Hondas scored two-stars just like the older Volvo S70. Obviously I'm not trying to say that they're safer than the Volvos, but just making a point about the pedestrian safety tests. We'll see.
-> Crikey - I take delivery next week, the vehicle is being upgraded (software) in Halifax right now. There might be a delay in getting it to Toronto due to a CN rail strike.
BTW, I spent my $1000 in free accessories as follows:
39972 668-6 Gray Rubber Mats (4), 1st and 2nd row $110.00
39972 683-5 Gray Rubber Mats (2), 3rd row $52.50
39974 459-8 Gray Rubber Load Compartment Mat/Tray (7-seater) $110.00
8670 931-8 XC90 Rear Skid Plate ($92.00 + 44.00 installation) $136.00
8622 852-5 Rear XC90 Mud Flaps ($53.80 + 52.98 installation) $106.78
8682 118-8 Square-Profile Aluminum Crossbars (load carriers) $246.31
8641 362-2 Picnic Table $195.00
Rear Bumper Cover $75.00
Calculating the exchange rate (US$1=C$1.50), many of these accessories are much cheaper in Canada.
I have a signed order. On the order it says, 2003 or 2004 model to be delivered in June 2003. The price I am paying for the vehicle with all options, tax etc. My deposit was taken for $1000. They want to bump my price up because of the price increase of $1100 on the 2004 even though I HAVE A CONTRACT SIGNED. Do I fight it? Can they just cancel my order because I wont pay?
Comments?
they have to refund.
check out the infinity fx45 or wait for the vw.
Is there a difference between the 2003 and the 2004? Or is this a way of being greedy and over charging for the same vehicle?
They claimed that when I bought my 2002 in April that the MSRP had actually gone up $50, but they honored the price.
If you got a bill of sale written out, you can possibly sue them...or at least call the better business bureau.