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
It will take another couple of weeks to make it through customs and then halfway across the country (to St. Louis from Baltimore - the reverse route the St. Louis Browns took on their way to becoming the Baltimore Orioles). The OSD was great. My wife and I enjoyed two weeks of driving our XC90 all over Sweden (about 1400 miles). The OSD price is usually better than anything than you can get at the dealership, although that is not the case now with the specials they have been running on the 2004s for the past couple of months. The OSD, of course, includes two free plane tickets and a night's stay in Gothenburg, but the down side is the wait for the car (worth it to me). The OSD price is non-negotiable, but sometimes you will hear of someone negotiating on some of the options (don't count on it). If you do go OSD, choose your dealership well - it is the weak link in the OSD.
The experience is great - Volvo takes good care of you. Plus you'll meet some great people - I met Lev and his family and had a very good time with them (it was his second OSD!). There are some active OSD forums on www.swedespeed.com and www.volvoxc.com with a lot of good info. I highly recommend it.
What you describe as your driving conditions are well suited to the XC90. Probably a little more than you would want to put an XC70 Cross Country or Mercedes E320 4-matic wagon through, but still short of "rock crawling".
Our needs are for an SUV that can handle 8-12 inches of snow with reasonable confidence, and, possibly, a future duty of hauling a boat. Our "off-roading" wouldn't be any more serious than yours, just in a different climate. From what I can tell, the XC90 with improved tires would probably do the trick, except in the deeper snow. The V8 would likely be the best choice if we end up hauling a boat. The GX470 could handle deeper snow, off-roading and boat hauling better than the XC90, but at the expense of lower gas mileage (than the 2.5) and, perhaps, not as good "on-road" handling. I still have to test drive one against the other on that front.
P.S. Other friends of ours with a Jeep Grand Cherokee borrowed our Isuzu Trooper a couple of years ago during a bad DC snowstorm when she was 9 months pregnant. Apparantly, the Grand Cherokee with stock tires isn't much better than the XC90 in getting through deep snow.
I want to make a few comments based on my general knowledge of physics and mechanics of driving, and my experience of driving different vehicles, including 3 and 4 axle military trucks on "unimproved" roads for years.
First of all, the FWD is rather a benefit for the most of the driving conditions, but the "speed slalom". So, it's a plus for the XC90, not a minus.
Second, the reason for the locking rear differential is to avoid a situation, when one wheel of the axle loses a grip and idles. It just locks this idling wheel to the one that has a grip.
The AWD system on Volvo does even better job of controlling all four wheels, preventing them from spinning, and re-distributing the torque to the wheel with the maximum grip. So, I would expect Volvo XC90 doing better in the mud than a truck-based SUV with the mechanically locked rear differential.
Thirdly,
The reason for the low gear transfer case is that the most engines produce highest torque at high RPM, so you need a higher ratio in the gear box, to be able to rev the engine up, while maintaining the low RPM for the wheels. The 2.5T has a very nice flat torque curve, with high torque available at (if I am not mistaken) 1500 RPM already. And torque does not get any better significantly, when you rev the engine up. So, with such engine the low-gear box does not give much improvement, but will complicate the design.
Yes, XC90 has relatively short suspension travel (which by the way explains that nice on-road handling and ride comfort), so I would not "climb the Everest" in it, but it does have very respectful ground clearance, which makes it a pretty potent "off-roader".
I have the benefits of reading Russian reviews on XC90. All of them consider XC90 as a very potent "off-roader", and believe me, the Russians know what it is to drive on unimproved roads, not because they like the trail blazing, but because there is no improved roads available, very often.
So, I agree with Bigeddy, you neighbor is uninformed.
My wife and I have ordered an XC-90 and it looks like our vehicle is going to be ready in October. We're really excited, but are nervous that we have made the "right" choices as far as our options packs are concerned. Any advice you can give with regards to our choices (especially those I place asterisks next to) would be appreciated.
2005 XC-90 T6 (just found out ours will be an '05) model
Versatility Pack (necessary as we have 2 children in car seats and need room for visiting family)
**Climate Pack- we ordered it... does anyone else have it and can you comment on it please?
*Park assist- how well does this work? My wife is English (I'm in the USAF stationed in England) and when we move back to the US next year I felt it might help her (not to mention me) park what will be a "larger than we're used to" vehicle
**NAV SYSTEM- I have just recently added this to our purchase for the same reason as the Park assist...and I haven't lived in the states for 7 years and my wife has never lived there (and I get lost easy
Premium (05' calls it "touring") package
We have added this just today after seeing an XC90 with the 18 inch wheels... they are really nice. What I would like is anyone's opinion on the sound system and retractable mirrors- are either one more than just "nice to haves"?
I know my requests are pretty broad, but I can change my mind about my accessories until Sep02 and am just making sure I cover all my bases.
Thanks again,
Lawrence
Now, the specifics:
1. T6 - maybe, it really is a matter of driving preferences. There is no right or wrong here. However, 2.5T is very potent and have reportedly better fuel economy. We opted for 2.5T
2. 7 seats - very usefull for all the reason you have mentioned. Very easy to put away, which creates a huge cargo space.
3. Climate pack - mixed feelings. We did get heated front seats as a stand alone option through the OSD. The rest was not important to us. See, if you can order some of the options a la cart.
4. Premium package - in our mind is a must for the luxury car - leather seats, sunroof, etc.
18" wheels were available as a stand alone option, that we have opted for. They are not only look good, but also provide a better handling and have nicer stock tires.
5. Park assist - in our case it will probably pay-off many times. My wife was driving Mazda MPV since 1996 and had damaged the rear bumper quite a few times. I did it once too.
The system works really well and helps a lot to back into the tight spot.
6. Navigational system. Very useful, if you travel a lot outside of you home area. Could be a "life saver" too. We opted out of it, mainly because I can always carry my laptop with me, and through my line of work I always have some mapping applications available and have a portable GPS receiver, that I can move from one car to another. Which make an equivalent for the navigational system. We just came back from the 2600 miles European tour, and there were a couple of situations we would be quite miserable, if not for the nav. system.
So, to summarize
T6 - no, Climate - yes for the certain options, if possible, Park assist - YES, nav. system - yes, but there are less expensive alternatives, premium - yes, 7 seats - yes.
I hope, it helps.
Insert "MDX" or "Pilot" in virtually every single one of you comments regarding the XC90's off-roading capabilities and they would be just as accurate. And, if if I'm not mistaken, the torque available at low RPM's in those larger displacement 3.5 liter V6's is higher than in the XC90's turbocharged engines where the turbos don't even kick in until 2,000+ rpm's
Neither the MDX/Pilot nor the XC90 even made the entry list in 4x4 Magazine's "SUV of the Year" comparison won by the GX470. I checked it out at the local Borders book store.
I don't want to belabor this issue, since it is academic to me. We have concluded that we are NOT in need of a "serious" off-roader ourselves. I guess I just feel compelled to respond when something is promoted for the wrong reasons. I have acknowledged that the XC90 has very good road manners, excellent safety equipment, and a nice, attractive interior. It's 7 passenger seating, albeit tight, gives it flexibility over the Touareg and Cayenne. But apparantly, that's not good enough for you . You are free to believe the XC90 is a "potent off roader" if you wish. However, I'm equally free to accept the alternate opinion of another XC90 owner that also previously owned a serious off roader (Landcruiser) and can tell the difference. And let's leave the "uniformed" insults to rest. At least until you've owned something other than a Volvo to broaden your perspectives.
We have a 2004 T6 with Prem, Vers, Climate, and BiXenon.
Vers-Know that the rear seats are really designed for small people, i.e. kids. I tried putting my son's car seat back there and it would not fit. The angle of the car seat does not match the seat and head rest. My daughter's booster seat fit in their fine. We have a booster and a car seat in row two. An adult could squeeze into the middle or side (depending how you situate the seats). Would not recommend for a long trip. Bottom Line, consider who and how you will transport your visiting family and kids together. Don't forget the load leveling feature. Not often talked about, but if hauling loads or many passengers it is a nice feature. I haven't used the headphone jacks, but I am anticipating as the kids get older the jacks getting much use.
Climate Pack - I like the option of the rear A/C for the third row. You also get a cabin air filter. The system will close off the outside air when it detects pollutants. I will have to go back to the owner's manual to be sure how it works. The rain sensor works great. I can't imagine having leather seats without the heat in a cold weather climate. And of course how can you have a European luxury car without some sort of headlamp washers.:)
Park Assist-I do not have. Seems very popular and I believe to be cheaper from the factory.
NAV System-For me I just couldn't see spending $2k on something that I just don't see myself using that much. My life is pretty much to work and back during the week, with the occasional family drive vacation on the weekends and I have never been in any real need of a navigation system. One thing I do to get by is yahoo map my route before I leave. Personally I would recommend no just to save $2k but then again this is coming from someone that spent the extra $2k on a T6 when we have all read on here that you could go either way and not really fail (unless you really just hate 4 -speeds and want to save 2-3 mpg). Your money your choice.
Premium-I am pretty sure that if you get the "18 wheels and the premium stereo separately you will spend more than for the package. That is why I did it that way. This is probably only true if you are getting the T6. The wheels are nice. Again be aware that tires are limited in choices (so far I have found four options, Michelin MXM4 for about $150 a tire (the OEM tires), two types of Pirrellis $140-$160 and Dunlop winters for $200). I would have passed on the retractable mirrors but like I said the package was cheaper than the stereo and wheel upgrade. The stereo is great. I definitely recommend the premium sound. We use a FM modulator for sound when using a portable DVD player on trips and they sound great. CDs sound great. FM stations are good. Overall I think Premium Package is a good option for the T6.
Some notes about trim. I don't notice it, but many folks have commented on the shift lever having a rough feel. You may want to consider the leather shifter. I think if you are going to get wood trim the wooden steering wheel looks sharp. We have a graphite interior and thought the aluminum would look better since the door handles and gear shifter are aluminum. We are look warm on this choice as the aluminum inlays are not a direct match to the door handles and gear shifter.
Almost forgot. I have the Bi-Xenons and love them. The light is so white and bright. I think they are worth the extra bucks and again if you are going to get a luxury Euro vehicle I feel a must have.
Will they color match paint the bumpers and rock panels etc for the '05? If so I think that looks much sharper.
If you are ordering OSD, get things like the mud flaps and possibly rubber cargo mat from the factory. I am pretty sure it is cheaper than having the dealership do it afterwards.
Sorry for the long read. Hope it is useful.
Chris
If you only drive the same twenty places over and over again, then don't get it. I thought of it as a glorified map. But there is SO MUCH more functionality in this device than I ever imagined.
You can ask it to search around the car for a restaurant, ATM, hospital, gas station, or many other kinds of businesses, create a detour around a problem traffic area, it guides you through weird intersections, zoom in on an area you're trying to see greater detail, and store frequently used destinations, among many other features.
I had to drive to Tampa a few weeks ago in a horrible Florida storm. I literally couldn't see any road signs until I was right upon them. The Nav system took me right there. The Nav system warns you from .3-.5 miles in advance and then shows you an expanded, detailed view of the intersection layout with your car in red so you know how close you are to making the turn.
It's a system I highly recommend.
The 2.5T's torque comes on strong at 1500 rpm and remains fairly flat. The MDX's V6 starts out low and peaks starting at 3500 rpm. Both good engines but with different design approaches.
habitat1: "Neither the MDX/Pilot nor the XC90 even made the entry list in 4x4 Magazine's "SUV of the Year" comparison won by the GX470. I checked it out at the local Borders book store."
Car of the Year awards are typically for new models only. The XC90 won several awards when it was introduced and even won a couple of "mud fest" competitions against many 4WD SUVs and pickups.
habitat1: "From what I can tell, the XC90 with improved tires would probably do the trick, except in the deeper snow."
We get about 3' of snow in town and lots more in the surrounding mountains. I live on a hill with a very steep driveway. The XC90 has done fine in snow above the bottom of the doors, at least 12". The only thing to watch for is to turn off DSTC when plowing through snow because it tries to prevent wheel spin which can cause the vehicle to bog.
Ironically, our neighbors who have a Landcruiser feel the need to run studded tires to go where we use studless winter tires. Landcruisers are certainly built to take off-road abuse but anything over 10 mph and they become clumsy beasts. Give me the versatile, well-balanced XC90 any day.
I take it you have the XC90 2.5? And what tires did it come with and/or what did you replace them with? Also, what kind of gas mileage do you get with your XC90 on the highway and around town?
Our neighbors got the dealership to replace their OEM tires at nominal cost after complaining about the poor performance last winter. However, I think they might have gotten 18" wheels and "performance" tires as part of a package that came on their T6. Other friends of ours made a similar mistake with a BMW X5. Although it handles like a sport sedan on dry pavement, "Z" rated tires aren't the best choice for snow , slush or ice.
It appears that the XC90 2.5 would suit our needs and pocketbook best. I am tempted to wait for both the 2005 GX470, which will have a significant engine improvement (+35 to 50 hp and better fuel efficiency) and the 2005 XC90 V8. But given that both of them are due out very late in the year and will not likely be discounted, the 2.5 may be the best "deal".
P.S. The SUV competition I referred to put several competitors through a series of off road tests and maneuvers. The GX470 won a second year in a row, I believe the Touareg came in second. Even the Cayenne had a very respectable showing, although I can't imagine a $90k 450hp Turbo model making too many off road trips.
And XC90 has won the 2003 North American Truck of the Year against the following:
Finalists for the North American Truck of the Year were Honda Element, Nissan Murano, Hummer H2. Nominees also included Land Rover Range Rover, Ford Expedition, Honda Pilot, Kia Sorento, Lexus GX 470, Lincoln Aviator, Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Baja, Toyota 4Runner.
P.P.P.S.
The XC90 was recently named Motor Trend 2003 Sport/Utility of the Year. Other awards in the United States and Canada include: 2003 SUV of the Year, AutoSpies.com; Best New Large SUV, Kiplinger's Personal Finance; Traffic Safety Achievement Award, World Traffic Symposium; SUV of the Year/Mudfest Champion, North West Automobile Press Association; Truck of Texas™, Texas Auto Writers Association; SUV of the Year, Guide de L'Auto; Best New Sport Utility Vehicle over $45,000 (Canadian Dollars), Automobile Journalists Association of Canada.
The awards in a bold font were given for most parts based on the off-road performance.
Those are all facts, Ed, not just my opinions. So, use your intelligence... It's not as hard to do for me, as you think...
And by the way, Ed, why did you decide that GX470 has the low-gear box and mechanically locked rear differential, that in your mind are so essential to the off-road capabilities?
From what I know, GX470 uses pretty much the same AWD technology as XC90. Different manufacturer, slightly different settings, but the same principals - re-distribute torque front/rear and left/right based on a traction (grip) of the individual wheel.
Another question - What is a circulation of the 4x4 Magazine of yours?
I could not find any references to their awards even on the official Lexus web site?
I would want to read about their test. Can I find it anywhere on a Web?
did you ever get this fixed? my wife's is the same but worse - volume is low cd doesn't work and rear parktronic is now fried - volvo doesn't know what to dov- tried sftware upgrade - she is getting real annoyed - any thoughts appreciated
Look, Lev, you seem intent on convincing me that the XC90 might be the perfect vehicle for any possible circumstance. I am more inclined to consider it for it's strengths and acknowledge some areas of compromise. Even Edmunds here notes that as a "con" of the XC90, it's "T6 engine isn't well suited to 'SUV duty'". Edmunds lists a "pro" of the GX470 as "plenty of off-road ability, should you need it". The XC90's major pro is listed as "safe as a bank vault", which is not a bad thing in my book.
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this off roading issue. But if you really insist, I will be happy to invite you to the DC area and we can go to Land Rover USA's Lanham Maryland test track and have their professional drivers test an XC90 side by side with a GX470. If the XC90 wins, I'll buy you a second one, if the GX470 wins, you buy me the vehicle of my choice. That's putting a lot of money where our respective mouths are, but I'm up for it if you are. After comparing the GX470 and XC90's original equipment tires and considering Volvo's FWD based AWD vs. the full time 4 wheel drive suystem in the GX, I am comfortable that I wouldn't be putting my kids college fund at risk.
Good thing we weren't both born 100 years ago and debating which horse is better off road, we might end up in a duel at high noon.
Yes, the 2.5T for its economy, 5-speed transmission and 17" wheels. Stock tires are Michelin 4x4 Synchrones. Switch to Gislaved Nordfrost 3 in winter which is the "stock" Volvo snow tire carried by dealers. Average something over 20 mpg (a little less in winter), with a couple mpg better on the highway and a couple mpg worse around town, towing or off-pavement. Friends with an almost identical T6 get about 2 mpg less.
habitat1: "The SUV competition I referred to put several competitors through a series of off road tests and maneuvers. The GX470 won a second year in a row, I believe the Touareg came in second. Even the Cayenne had a very respectable showing, although I can't imagine a $90k 450hp Turbo model making too many off road trips."
I haven't driven the Lexus although I tested a Touareg which I liked. I know the Lexus won at least one off-road magazine award where they apoligized for loving the luxury - I know what they mean!
The Volvo dealer allowed me to take an XC90 on light off-roading to check the gearing, engine response and clearance which I found to be acceptable for my needs. One feature the Lexus has that I wish was on the XC90 is a hill-assist but it has worked out Ok so far. It helps that I learned to drive Jeeps on Class-4 & 5 trails and can judge what the XC90 can and can't do.
habitat1 [responding to lev_berkovich]: "Good thing we weren't both born 100 years ago and debating which horse is better off road, we might end up in a duel at high noon."
Good response!
Do you feel it's worth the effort to switch back and forth between winter and summer tires? I'm willing to give up a little highway/summer comfort for a good all-season that can get me though the winter. Again, coming out of a Trooper with tires that are very truck like, anything on an XC90 will likely produce a smoother ride.
I'm planning on giving the XC90 2.5 a more thorough test drive in the next week or two. Our local dealer has offered to give me his for a full day. I'm still tempted to wait for the 2005 model just to save a year of depreciation, but assuming I like the 2.5, I may not be inclined to wait until December +/- for the V8. I've also heard that the improved V8 in the 2005 GX470 will not be available until very late in the year and will not likely be discounted as the demand for year end tax deductions will be high. The GX470 is a good value at $2,000 over invoice ($4,500 +/- under MSRP = $47k +/-). But I'm not inclined to pay $52k for it.
Given that the XC90 2.5 7-seater qualifies for the 6,000+ GVW tax deduction, it is looking like the best all around value out there, potentially for the 2005 models as well.
On the tax deduction, how does that work and where can I find more info on it? Is it a federal or state deduction?
Thanks,
Chris
Dealer's choice. Switching tires is routine where I live because snow & ice are a predictable part of winter driving. Also, the XC90 offers a nice ride with the stock "all-season" Michelins so it makes some sense to take advantage of that in the summer and switch to winter tires around November.
OTOH, many people do not want to be bothered storing and switching tires. An all-season tire with good winter performance may be the best bet for them. Unfortunately, there is not much to choose from in either the 17" or 18" sizes.
The XC90 V-8 with a 6-speed tranny sounds attractive. I hear it will be at $50k, though, and certainly not negotiable early on.
IMO, the only time it might make sense to buy late in the model year is if you get a big discount and there are no improvements of significance and you don't plan on selling or trading for several (more than 5-6 years).
Regarding the notorious SUV tax deduction, it hasn't (yet) been rescinded. For any SUV having a "gross vehicle weight" of over 6,000 lbs, you can write off 100% of the purchase price in the first year you buy it, assuming it's used for business. There are some other conditions and restrictions, so check with your accountant or tax advisor. I believe the XC90 with the 7-seat "versitility package" just barely qualifies. Gross vehicle weight is equal to curb weight plus cargo capacity and is listed on the EPA/DOT sticker on the inside of the passenger door.
Dont' get me started on the appropriateness of this tax loophole. I have a business associate who paid a $2,200 gas guzzler tax on his 2002 BMW M5 that gets 25 mpg on the highway but then wrote off the entire $90,000 purchase price of his 2004 Cayenne Turbo that averages about 16 mpg. Go figure.
Having said that, in reference to the XC90, you could probably still save some money on the purchase price that may make up for that difference with an MY04 late in the calendar year. It sounds like the MY05 XC90 has gone up a few hundred dollars with little differences in features (aside from a V8 offered sometime in the MY), meanwhile the MY04 is being offered at what appear to be great deals. In the end, I suppose it is more important on what kind of money can you save now v.s. what can you salvage out of it on the other end when selling years down the road.
Thanks for the info on the tax write off. I don't use my vehicle for business so it won't help me out. Too bad as it sounds like a good way to save some money.
Chris
Seriously, we have been told to expect a couple of cars in late Nov or Dec. These are being specced by the factory.
A custom order would have to wait for the next allocation, figure Jan-Feb.
The Vovlo still got relatively good ratings for an SUV, but I would have thought it would have led the pack, especially since the super handlers (Cayenne, X5) weren't rated.
I doubt this will affect my purchase decision one way or the other.
Rollover in
Single Vehicle
Crash
I do not know what that %% exactly means.
Chrysler Pacifica 4x4 SUV 4 13.0 No Tip
Chrysler Pacifica 4x2 SUV 4 14.0 No Tip
Nissan Murano 4x4 SUV 4 15.1 No Tip
Honda Pilot 4x4 SUV 4 15.9 No Tip
Nissan Murano 4x2 SUV 4 15.9 No Tip
Volvo XC90 4x4 SUV 4 17.9 No Tip
Buick Ranier 4x4 (3) SUV 4 19.1 No Tip
Chevrolet Trailblazer 4x4 SUV 4 19.1 No Tip
Dodge Durango 4x4 SUV 4 19.1 No Tip
GMC Envoy 4x4 (3) SUV 4 19.1 No Tip
Just got an explanation from the NHTSA web site.
The %% has nothing to do with the actual test results, but is calculated based on the dimensions of the car. It's based on a ratio of the track width and the height of the center of gravity. Than this value, called Static Stability Factor (SSF)is used to determine the %% rating using some empiric curve. Apparently, XC90 is somewhat narrower than Pilot.
The dynamic test (avoidance maneuver, fishhook maneuver) is a pass/do not pass test. Both Pilot and XC90 obviously has passed.
I would think, that the roll-stability system on Volvo is more significant safety factor than a slightly higher SSF. Pilot - 1.25 and XC90 - 1.21, Pacifica - 1.33. And the NHTSA test unfortunately does not/can not measure it up. So the widest and the lowest vehicle will always be on a top of the list (which perfectly explains the first place for the Pacifica).
Basically, what that percentage is telling you is that if you line up a Pilot and an XC90 on a road, with both standing still, and both get hit equally, the Pilot has a better chance of not rolling over.
What the test does not tell you is that if both vehicles hit the same patch of slick road, which one is more likely to roll over.
It also does not tell you, if both vehicles roll over, which one has the better chance of protecting the occupants inside. There, my money's on the XC90. Ask Honda to roll over a Pilot (or an MDX) in front of the press (several times) and if they do it and the vehicle does well, then I might change my mind.
That's not to mention those awful (though anecdotal) photos of crushed MDX roofs posted a while back.
Unfortunately, the NHTSA's rollover test rating has always been controversial and even with the addition of the tip/no-tip dynamic test, it still is. It opens up the door to superficial, uninformed comparisons of safety.
Be careful suggesting that test. You might be asked to pay for it... Just look into the response to one of my latest postings...
Not quite. NHTSA states:
"The model uses two inputs -- static stability factor (SSF) and dynamic test results -- to determine a vehicle's chance of rollover and thus its star rating."
so it's not based "purely" on the static measurement. The SSF is a convenient parameter for characterizing a vehicle for purposes of this rating but the rating is based on the dynamic tests.
I haven't yet seen exactly how they arrive at the rating graph so I am withholding judgment.
See NHTSA FAQs
tidester, host
After reading the NHTSA methodology carefully again, I still maintain a position, that while the overall rating is based on a static and dynamic tests, however, the percentage (and that is what I said specifically) is based ONLY on a presented graph, that has ONLY SSF depicted on a X-axle.
So, for all the vehicles that did not tip, their ranking (first, second, etc., and that is in my mind the subject of the current discussion, remember, habitat was surprised at the results that put Pilot ahead of the XC90) will be defined STRICTLY by the ratio between the track width and the center's of gravity height.
So, the dynamic test is used as a qualifier, but rating amongst the "stable" ones, is defined by the vehicle proportions.
The dynamic qualifier is also a "weak" one
If you analyze the graph, the SSF dependence is much more significant than the tip/do not tip qualifier.
Using the example from the NHTSA site -
The vehicle with the SSF 1.2 that did not tip (was perfectly stable) will receive 19%, vehicle with the same proportions that did tip (is pretty unsafe in my mind) will get 22% (just 3 more %%). And a vehicle with SSF 1.17 (just 3% different in proportions, you will not probably even notice that) and did not tip - once again, perfectly safe in motion, will get the same low 22% (3 stars) as the tipped one.
Pretty questionable in my mind, and definitely "static" biased.
the percentage (and that is what I said specifically) is based ONLY on a presented graph
I agree! As I said, until I know more about how they arrived at the graph I shall withhold judgment. [Editorial: One does have to wonder why they did not spell out in clear and concise terms exactly what methods they used!]
tidester, host
The percent chance of rollover is based on two curves for SSF vs. %. One for tip, the other for no-tip.
If you compare two vehicles that both did not tip, the SSF is the only deciding factor on the so-called probability of rollover.
If you compare two vehicles that both tipped, the SSF is the only deciding factor on the so-called probability of rollover.
The dynamic test does come into play if you compare a vehicle that didn't tip with a vehicle that does. Dunno why someone would do that, tipping isn't a good thing! Unless you're a waitperson.
The overall star rating is influenced by the tip/no-tip plus the SSF. In this case, both the aforementioned Pilot and XC90 were four stars. The only difference was the chance of rollover, which, in this case, is based purely on the SSF (since neither vehicle tipped). Which in turn is based purely on the computation of the height of the center of gravity relative to the width of the track.
The only missing variable there is how the curve was computed, but the curve applies to both the Pilot and XC90 based on the static measurement of stability.
This is one of the dangers of going into the fine points of the star rating. NHTSA elected to publish the chance of rollover, when it's a pretty flawed system when comparing two vehicles that performed similarly in the dynamic test.
The experienced driver compensate for the lack of the roll-over stability system, for instance, because he (she) knows how and when to apply brake, how to steer, and when you need accelerate again.
Also, the NHTSA test occurs at the speeds between 35 and 50 MPH. Probably not enough to push a car beyond the limit, where the more sophisticated system will play it's role.
Volvo was demonstrating their roll-over protection system, usin the moose avoiding maneuver at 60+ MPH.
Vehicle A wobbles but does not tip, and has no stability control, and rolls excessively on its suspension. Vehicle B, when rollover is detected, shoots a hook into the ground to keep it from rolling over. It does not tip in the test.
Because Vehicle B has a higher center of gravity related to its width of track, NHTSA would give it a higher probability of rollover than Vehicle A.
An extreme, hypothetical example, to be sure. But it illustrates how one must read the NHTSA result carefully. Unfortunately, some folks just read the superficial star rating and NHTSA's misleading numbers and think otherwise.
The NHTSA, probably, feels proud introducing the dynamic factor to the roll-over rating in 2004. Their 2003 rating was pure SSF (dimensional) based.
And the relatively low test speeds explain the relatively low statistical significance of the dynamic test.
Pilot is wider, so, is naturally, more stable and does not tip, but could be very close to tipping at the test's speed.
XC90 is narrower, but has superior suspension and sophisticated roll-over protection system. So, it not only do not tip, but is very far from tipping at the same speed. But we will never know.
The good objective measure will be an angle at which each vehicle has tilted during the maneuver.
Maybe NHTSA will measure and publish it the future.
I think there was some discussion on the NHTSA presenting the specifics of the dynamic test, e.g. was the vehicle at an angle. Or going further with the test and increasing the successive speeds to try to create the tip.
NHTSA gets heat for its crash tests too. Its full-frontal crash test is considered by many to be less relevant than the offset-frontal crash tests conducted by IIHS, EuroNCAP, and Australian NCAP. NHTSA's side-impact test uses a small barrier (size of a Corolla) at an angle, and does not attempt to create or measure head injuries (whereas EuroNCAP and Aussie NCAP apply a pole test for testing head injuries, and use a perpendicular impact, and IIHS uses a larger barrier that generates trauma to the head area).
tidester, host
It's not even clear that the static rating means much because they do not say how the center of gravity (CG) is determined. If it is just an estimate based on vehicle weight and height it could be way off. Just because a vehicle is tall does not mean it has a high CG because that depends on where heavy components (engine, transmission, etc.) are located. The XC90 also has a relatively narrow roof line which helps reduce upper weight.
What helps me to get through the numbers and ratings, is that I always try to get to the science or engineering of the review. And if it does not correspond to my general knowledge, I do not except it, unless it is reasoned to me.
I am not always understood or appreciated by others, but it's fine with me, I just choose a different audience next time.
For example, I still do not understand what is the difference between the "full time four wheel drive" of GX470 and "full time all wheel drive" of XC90 besides the initial torque distribution - 40/60 and 95/5 respectively. That distribution changes in 1/7th of the wheel revolution, if front wheels are slipping, and the eventual settings are (front/rear) 29/71 and 35/65 respectively. Look almost identical to me. It also means that XC90 can go with 50/50 distribution, if requires...
IS THE FORUM WORKING????
We need some exciting stories or some controversial topics to spice it up...
XC90 is, by far, the best selling European SUV worldwide and in US.
This year Volvo XC90 hugely outsold BMW X5.
Volvo has sold over 76K units just in North America, and I believe close or over 100K worldwide by July 1, while BMW has sold only 48K X5 worldwide.
Huge difference, isn't it?