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
All in all, with the new Yamaha engine, 6-speed transmission, advanced AWD system, etc. the XC90 has vaulted to the top of my list for 2005. I shared the article with some other friends who own a 2003 T6 and they have already put down a $5,000 deposit. They like their XC90 very much, with the exception of the T6 engines "sluggish performance" (their words), poor gas mileage and the FWD based AWD system. They had come out of a 2000 BMW X5 4.4 which they also loved, but was too small for their growing family. They view the 2005 XC90 V-8 as potentially able to match the best of both worlds. I agree.
Doesn't the updated AWD in the V8-powered XC90 only prevent initial slippage (however brief it is) on start-up, but not during normal cruising on a highway? Thus the updated system is still a FWD-based AWD system with an AWD enhancement for launching. When cruising, it's still FWD-based, reactive AWD.
Please note that I'm not complaining, mind you, as overall the AWD upgrade is a distinctive improvement and will be very useful for "extrication." Especially for all that extra torque (!) coming from the V8 to launch the vehicle. Plus I'm not convinced that reactive-AWD is a bad thing for cruising in 99% of circumstances.
According to Volvo's news release at:
http://www.volvocars.us/_Tier2/NewsEvents/
... This new technology - which Volvo Cars is the first automaker in the world to introduce - considerably improves the scope for quick getaways ... When starting off from standstill, 59 lb/ft of torque is pre-charged ...
Volvo's specific implementation is the first of its kind, though the concept exists in other vehicles. E.g. the Acura MDX's AWD system is also based on a reactive AWD system, but upon acceleration it forces power to the rears to improve launch traction (it also has a manual torque-to-the-rear engagement mode, which is handy). Some Subarus also shift power to the rears when accelerating as well.
Nevertheless, a nice improvement to an already excellent vehicle. If I was buying early next year the V8 XC90 would be at the top of my list. The price gets in the neighborhood of the GX470 with greater luxury, but the extra safety features of the XC90 would make my decision. I'm glad you've potentially found the vehicle you want.
BTW, the XC90 V8 will first be shown at the Anaheim Auto Show in October.
Thanks!
The difference between the old and a new approach is the check valve that does not allow for the system to de-pressurize completely, and keeps that 59 lbs of pressure available to the rear wheels right from the first split second.
On old system, once engine will start, it will take for the electric pump some time to build a default pressure to transfer a default 5% torque to the rear wheels. So, for a moment, until that pressure is built, the full torque from the motor would be transferred to the front wheels only.
It is my understanding, that the reason for the check valve was not to improve the handling, but ensure that the car will start on all four to properly handle hefty torque from the new engine.
There was a reason why performance cars eventually moved away from the front-wheel drive design. And the torque handling from the stand-still is one of the major ones. There was a rule of thumb, that FWD can not handle more than ~200 HP. It has changed with the better rubber available, but still, the FWD has always some limitations on amount of torque it can handle pulling car from the stationary position without the slippage.
I have the 2004 XC90 2.5 T and I really love it. Dealer actually told me that ride handling and stability was better than the T6 and am glad I went with the 2.5 T, of all the problems I did hear on the 2003 models, especially bad tires.
But after reading the official announcement posted on the Volvo XC90 Website for the V8, it sounded really chic. I'd love to have that additional power from 208 to I believe like 320 horses or so and with the AWD enhanced Haldex. I love the fact that they have a tire pressure warning system as well. The fact that they are bringing in a brand new engine from Yamaha, sounds really cool.
* Over the first five years.
Sedan: Honda Civic
Coupe: Infiniti G35
Convertible: Nissan 350Z roadster
Luxury: BMW 5-Series
Pickup: Toyota Tacoma PreRunner
Sport Utility: Volvo XC90
Check this article recently posted on MSN Autos
http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4022645&sr- c=msn>1=5015
So for folks buying the 2005 XCs, cannot go wrong here. I am strongly exploring talking to my local dealer on a 2004-2005 trade! ;0)
We finally have got our 2.5T Ruby Red beauty yesterday after it was released by the custom.
My wife is the primary driver, and I never tell her that there is such a thing as a turbo lag, so she does not know, she likes everything.
I drove it today through the canyons to the ocean and was, again, very pleased with the overall performance and excellent (subjectively, subjectively) handling.
We have touched the V-8 issue with my wife, while driving, and reminded our self again that there was a "green" reason for the 5-cyl engine for us. We like to drive the ULEV (S ULEV?) SUV with the Green guide index of 9, better than many smaller family sedans. Both, my wife and I are the "heavy footers", so we average about 17 MPG for the first 3000 M. Could you imagine what it would be with T6?
So far we are pretty exited about our car.
Probably not as different as you think. The larger engine doesn't have to work as hard to move the car, so uses less gas when working. More gas idling.
glad Customs finally released your vehicle - is there a good story there, at least? Maybe you shouldn't have driven it all the way to China before dropping it off!!! :-)
I haven't done much hill driving yet. I agree that a ride up Woodside Road from 280 to Skyline would be a decent test, particularly if you can load it with 4 heavy adults. I'm sure the 2.5 would be just fine. There's no way you are going to have any performance issues with that load. I'
ve even heard of people towing up the Grapevine with no problem, so....
nonetheless, in the Skip Barber course, the T6 was more fun - it had more guts/more growl. But I still like the 2.5 just fine.
Al, we're taking ours to the Colorado mountains next month. I'm curious as to how it will perform, too.
And why 30? My college drive Honda hybrid that makes about 60 mpg. So what, the rest of us should sell our cars?
My marketing director has a 2005 E320CDI that weighs over 4,000lbs. I have a 2004 Acura TL 6-speed that weighs 3,500 lbs. Her E320CDI is darn near as quick as the TL and she has averaged 30 mpg around town. In similar driving conditions, I am averaging around 16-17. Even on the highway, where I average 28, she has gotten as high as 40.
That CDI engine in the XC90 would likely produce performance comparable with the Yamaha V8, with at least a 50-75% increase in fuel efficiency. And, unlike the ridiculously priced Touareg TDI, her E320 CDI is only $1,000 more than the E320 gas (and several $1,000's less than the V8 E500).
The idea that an SUV that gets anything over about 17 mpg is "green" is an unfortunate commentary on how the CAFE exemption for SUV's has dis-incentivized the manufacturers.
Most cars in Europe are now running the new generation diesel engine that are quiet, don't smell and run!
Hopefully Volvo and others will follow MB lead and bring their diesels over here.
do we have the low-sulfur diesel available to us (as Europe does)?
How many times did I ask you to check the facts before you response?
The XC90 2.5T AWD sold in California has an Air pollution index of 9 (that is not for SUV, that is common index for all types of vehicles) and emits 2.8-4.1 pounds of pollutant per 15000 miles.
The Acura TL sold on the East Coast has a pollution index of 8 and emits 5.3-6.3 pounds of pollutants per 15000 (about twice as much as Volvo).
For comparison, California XC90 T6 has index of 5 and emits 15.1 - 19.8 pounds of pollutants.
East Coast Lexus GX470 has index as low as 1.
That was one of the reasons for me to get 2.5T versus T6.
Now, speaking of diesels - I would love to get a diesel, Volvo sells XC90 turbo diesels all over the world, but US. The reason - our environmental laws.
California is the most stringent state of all.
Mercedes sells their diesels now in all the states, but California. It's still not quite legal here.
I strongly believe that US misses the boat by not promoting modern turbo diesels. Besides everything, it will reduce our dependency on foreign oil, due to the different refinement process, and, eventually, will help to make our country a bit safer.
But that is totally different story.
For now, I am just going with the best available technology. I just want to reiterate that Volvo XC90's position in the environmental protection arena is not to shabby, and definitely is nothing to be ashamed off.
It's not a usual SUV in this respect.
Now, when it comes to the marketing strategy - I do not believe that XC90 D5 will sell well here.
American drivers are the HP "freaks". This board is a perfect example - look to the excitement over the new V8 320HP engine. Like 208 2.5T is not powerful enough...
Do not be confused, if you feel that 2.5T is underpowered, you will never like D5. It's even less agile.
Mercedes considers CDI as a marginal item. They can afford to diversify their production to obtain that small additional edge in the 48 states auto market. Volvo sells as many XC90 as they just can produce world wide. For them, there is no any incentives, from my point of view, to disrupt already very tight production schedule to get into the iffy niche
If gas and diesel fuel are roughly the same price here, and gas is easier to find then diesels will never be more than marginal cars here.
I do not know the power rating of the Volvo D5 but I'm sure Volvo could produce Diesel engine that would be close to the 2.5T rating and still use 40% less fuel.
I use not to think much of diesel until my summer trip to Europe. I was so impressed by that Audi that I would have bought one as a second car if it would have been available here. Altough not as pricey as Europe, gasoline pricing is pretty high up here!
Volvomax; do not forget the old saying: you should never say never...
Do not get me wrong, I will buy a diesel at the very first opportunity. I am a big proponent of diesels as a helthy alternative to the gasoline engines.
However, so far nobody I know was able to produce a diesel that is close to the it's gasoline counterpart by performance and is significantly more frugal.
But potentials are there - the gallon of diesel fuel contains much more power than the gallon of high octane gasoline, however, it's technologically harder to manage.
P.S.
I often use a "royal" YOU, it does not mean You personally, it indicates an imaginary opponent in the discussion. I often think and speak as I have an internal dialog with another person, therefore I am guilty of using that way of speaking.
It was considered very appropriate in European literature of 19th century, and it is less common now. But it suites me well.
A few other engines to compare:
Mercedes
E320 - 221HP, CDI (same 3.2L) - 200HP
VW Jetta
2L gas - 115HP, 1.8T gas - 180 HP, 1.9 diesel - 100 HP.
So, Volvo has very good diesel, that just about 20% less powerful than it's turbo gas counterpart.
I'd be curious to drive an XC90 diesel....
Objectively (0-60, sec per 1 mile, etc), XC90 D5 is considerably slower than 2.5T, and subjectively, according to the reviews from Great Britain and Russia (two languages I can read), it feels more sluggish too. However, the fuel economy and overall savings (diesel fuel is much less expensive in Europe), makes it very attractive.
But I'd love to get 31 MPG.
Would I trade my C70 HT in for a Diesel coupe?...No.
Would I trade in the T6 XC in?....I think most definitely, after my experience. But I would want to drive it first as my experience was only as a passenger.
The 2005 E320 CDI "only" has 201 hp, but 369 ft-lbs of torque. That's the same amount of torque as a BMW M5. As a result, the E320 CDI is quite a bit quicker than the E320 gas and, in fact is rated at 0-60 in the same time as my friend's 1997 E420 V-8 (6.7 seconds). That's also quicker for a nearly 4,000 lb sedan than is being projected for the XC90 V8 with 315 hp.
Mercedes has proven that there is no engineering (or financial) reason why diesels cannot match or exceed the performance of gasoline engines AND provide 40-50%+ better fuel economy. And there is absolutely no reason that these engines shouldn't be in SUV's where their added weight isn't much of a disadvantage, but their added torque is a potentially huge advantage for off roading and boat hauling and just moving a 4,500+ pound vehicle.
BMW is also working on a diesel V8 with very good performance.
Its more a question of market forces.
Gasoline is very cheap in the US, relatively speaking.
Diesel isn't as easy to acquire and the states that subscribe to the CARB standard basically have outlawed passenger car diesels.
Given these facts and the reticence of the American public towards purchasing diesels, I doubt that there will be much real demand for diesels in the near future.
By the way, she traded a 1999 E300 TD w/75k miles for the 2005. Got a similar value in trade in as they would have given her for an E430 gas which, when new, cost over $7,000 more.
I agree that the relatively low gas prices have limited demand for diesels, as well as some long standing misperceptions. Slap a gas guzzler tax on SUV's like they do on cars, though, and I expect demand would increase. My friend with a 2002 M5 paid a $2,200 gas guzzler tax and at 25+ miles to a gallon on the highway, probably gets better highway mileage than 95% of the SUV's sold in America. About double the 13mpg of a Hummer which, by the way, qualifies for a 100% tax write-off. Slightly screwed up tax incentives, IMO (even though I may take advantage of them).
The Volvo D5 with 163 HP matches the NON-TURBO 2.4 I5 with 168HP,
And I would not insult Mercedes engineers either
3.2L TURBOCHARGED engine is rated for 349HP, quite a difference from 200HP for CDI.
Such relation is quite common across the board for the European car manufacturers, see VW, Audi.
The diesel is close to the naturally inspired gasoline engines, but is not a match for the turbocharged high performance engines.
When it comes to the XC90, it is powered by the turbocharged engine - therefore that is the base for my previous comment.
"The E320 CDI Sedan does not meet the emissions requirements of California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York or Vermont and is not available in these states"
You are pritching to the chore
Back to diesels again, are we? For starters, since this is an XC90 forum, the vehicle's engine compartment is constrained and it is unlikely a big diesel would fit. Also, the nice weight distribution that works so well with a light engine would be thrown off by a big, heavy diesel, Volvo went to considerable effort to squeeze in a custom-designed, compact, lightweight V8 which does not compromise the overall vehicle design.
Then, there is the problem that the U.S. does not offer the low-sulfur fuel needed to take advantage of modern diesels. Because the XC90 is designed primarily for the U.S. market, it makes no sense for Volvo to develop a special diesel.
Yes, diesels offer somewhat better fuel mileage, but at the cost of more pollution (especially particulates). The large torque output of diesels is useful in truck applications but would provide little advantage for the XC90 which is primarily a family hauler. More torque will not change the towing capacity or off-road ability which is determined by other factors; I've found the 2.5T to be fine for these purposes.
A diesel is not a good answer to any perceived problems with the XC90's engines. Let's see how the ultra-low emission V8/6-speed does for those who want more power.
I live in an urban area that occasionally experiences inversions - so the air may stay in the region rather than blowing out. As such, those diesel particulates just hang around, and make you sick. The health risk numbers are very bad for diesels and the particulates associated with them. We are not talking 1 in a million health risk, either. The presenation I saw this week, by a very smart, very moderate doctor, scared the hell out of me.
and keep in mind that lots of businesses in your neighborhoods are installing diesel generators to be used during black outs. And they are turned on once a month for maintenance, to ensure they will work when needed. If you live down wind from a commercial area, the cumulative impact of this will affect your health.
diesels may be a decent solution if we can get more low sulfur fuel and they are used in areas not subject to inversions
On the low sulfer issue, the CDI and other "modern" diesels run fine on the high sulfer diesel. Thank your congressman or senator for allowing repeated delays in requiring low sulfer diesel in the U.S. It's illegal to own a 30+ mpg CDI in California, but the governor can get a 100% tax write off for his 12 mpg Hummer. Now there's a place with its priorities figured out!
P.S. Lev: Comparing a diesel output to a high performance supercharged engine is a bit irrelevant. I thought the 2.0 liter 240 horsepower engine in my S2000 was a technological marvel. But I wouldn't want to see it, or even a 3 liter version with 360 horsepower, attempted to be used in an SUV. If I want a 9,000 rpm sports car, I'll buy an S2000. But in propelling a 4,500+ vehicle (6,000+ gvw), possibly hauling a 4,000+ lb boat, I do think a Yamaha V8 or CDI type diesel alternative is a better choice than a 2.5 liter turbocharged engine. Especially if you plan on keeping the vehicle for 150k miles. That's a lot of time and strain to be putting on small engine turbochargers.
Have it your way. Enjoy your Acura TL and I will enjoy my XC90. The frustrating part of arguing with you is that I can never "match" a point of discussion with you. You switch it at every turn.
My original point was that the diesel engine on XC90 can not match it's counterpart - the turbocharged gasoline engine, and I do not know any car manufacturer who has done it.
In return, you have changed the subject and said that Volvo engineers should learn from Mercedes, where CDI matches the gasoline counterpart. You have omitted, that the counterpart is naturally inspired, and is not turbocharged.
When I pointed you to that omission, and said that
a. Volvo diesel matches it's non-turbo gasoline engine of the same size, and
b. Mercedes diesel does not match it's turbocharged engine with the same volume,
you have switched the subject again, and now discussing whether turbocharged engine should be used in SUV or not.
I have never argued this specific point, that is totally irrelevant to my initial point.
Please, when you answer to me, read my statement, and respond to my points. Otherwise, the whole discussion makes no sense.
Though, I should admit, that the discussion had very little value to begin with, aside of providing some entertainment to the participants, and, maybe, to the "spectators"
It's way too amateurish. There are some differences that derive from the laws of physic and thermodynamic between the processes in the self-ignited diesel and spark-ignited gasoline engines, as well as the differences between the diesel fuel and high octane gasoline, that can not be "erased" by technology.
Just think of how much more (external energy and money) it takes to refine the gasoline versus diesel, and you will understand that unless it brings significant technological advantages to the engine designers, it would be all long forgotten in our capitalist society.
You somehow have now convinced yourself - probably not hard to do - that a diesel engine alternative won't work for Volvo because it won't generate the same horsepower per liter of displacement as a turbocharged engine?? And you have the ____ to discuss relevancy?
For 2005, Volvo is wisely offering a naturally aspirited V8 engine - 4.4 liters, no less - for the XC90 SUV application. I merely stated that they could do well to also consider a modern diesel. You disagree, claiming that a diesel couldn't match the performance, because it would require greater displacement than a turbocharged engine and that's somehow a technological disadvantage?? Re-read above - Volvo IS USING A 4.4 liter engie for 2005.
I strongly suspect that the 3.2 liter CDI engine could easily beat the performance of the T6 engine, while beating the gas mileage of the 2.5 liter by 30-50%. After all, the CDI engine will take the 3,840 lb E320 from 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, whereas the T6 engine can only get the 4,600 lb XC90 from 0-60 in about 8.5. Notwithstanding all the extra gallons of "high tech" gasoline it's burning in the process.
Pop quiz: Which contains more energy, a gallon of refined gasoline or a gallon of diesel fuel? I sure hope you can answer that one before you start trying to give lessons on "the laws of physics and thermodynamics", smartypants.
P.S. Better reread your previous sources of information, too. The 2004 Acura TL puts out 8.0 tons of greenhouse gases per year whereas the XC90 2.5 puts out 8.5 tons. Oh, and the 1999 E300 turbodiesel - only put out 7.0 tons. My guess is when they rate the 2005 E320 CDI, it will be significantly less. Hope that doesn't burst your bubble for patting yourself on the back for your "green" choice.
tidester, host
I'm waiting for the V8 because that is the engine/transmission combination that I am most interested in. I have heard "late December" for initial availability, but the dealer still doesn't know if that's when they will start production, can be ordered, or will actually be arriving. I'm also having him look into overseas delivery, if that will help get me an early production vehicle sooner (i.e. 2004 tax year).
I know I can buy any BMW through ED for approximately $1,000 over the ED invoice price (representing another $2,000-$3,000+ discount on top of the 7% lower ED list prices). The Volvo dealer I am working with (who also sells BMWs) has said they can negotiate, but we haven't gotten into specifics until he confirms whetehr or not the 2005 V8 will be avialable in time.
I'm just wondering what others have been able to negotiate?
Last friday I was at my Volvo Dealer closing the deal on a S60 2.5T. The salesman in the next office picks up the phone and start answering questions about the XC90. "Yes, Yes, a 2.5 turbo or a 2.9 turbo.... No, no, the diesel is only available in Europe....."
Can you make a diesel outperform the upcoming 4.4 XC90? Maybe but most probaly not.
Can you make a diesel to closely match to the performance of the 2.5T with much better fuel economy? I'd bet good money it can be done! A 2.9 Turbo diesel could certainly do it and still fit the engine bay. It would be nice to travel more than 300 miles between fill ups!
I'll certainly have to go to Europe soon. I'll make sure to test drive an XC90 Diesel over there and let you know what I think.
Somehow I do not think we can have too many choices!
We have been told to expect a token few by mid to late December.
These cars will be built to volvo's spec and can't be ordered.
Your probably looking at Jan-Feb for a dealer ordered car.
No word on Overseas cars, but I doubt they will be available before spring.