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
Finally, I have heard the 2.5T runs alright on 87 octane(regular) gas. Is this true? Any experience on fuel with the V8: grade and mileage?
2.5T vs. V8 is a tough choice, and only you can decide - it is strictly a matter of driving preferences. We have 4 drivers in a family and all of us are very happy with the 2.5T We do not feel any lack of power, though the 2.5T is not a racing car. The gas mileage of our 2.5T is right at the EPA figures - around 17MPG in a city (LA) and 22 - 24 on a highway on premium (91).
2.5T just like pretty much any Volvo can use 87, though you feel a considerable changes in the behavior. Also, from my experience with the S80, where I have experimented with the different octane ##, the savings are questionable. Engine requires more of 87 than of 91, due to the fact that the timing is automatically adjusted, as engine senses the lower grade, and engine does not work in the most optimal mode. Since XC90 is too new (just 14K), we never use anything but premium for it. I believe that the lower grade does put an additional stress to the engine. The modern engine is a piece of engineering art, and if it is designed for premium you better not to disturb the sensitive equilibrium that leads to the best performance, especially with the samller engines.
If you continuously drive at high altitudes, the 2.5T may not seem as “sluggish” since the forced induction will generate more power as the V8 performance will be degraded; not to the point where the 2.5 is more powerful though.
Also if you load up a 2.5T with three rows of seats etc, the V8 includes that as standard. This normally doesn’t matter, but if you choose the OSD the discount is only applied to the BASE MSRP. All the options you would add to the car are at the standard rate.
So if you were to do the OSD and wanted a 2.5T with 3 rows of seats (and some of the other extras) the V8 price increase really isn’t that substantial compared to a 2.5T loaded with similar options; the key is if you want those options.
i suppose the major mpg problem is that the xc90 is about as aerodynamic as a borg cube.
i'd love it if i could get an xc90 with a diesel engine in USA. maybe after 2007.
ps - over 3000 miles with the 2.5t, i determined that 87 octane gives the same mpg as 91+ octane, at highway speeds.
Volvo is mum on diesels for the US at this point.
Drag coefficients
XC90 - 0.36 - one of the best
X5 - 0.35
Chrysler Pacifica - 0.36
MDX - 0.36
MB M320 - 0.39
Cadillac SRX - 0.37
2005 Grand Cherokee - 0.41
Shall I continue?
What it is with you, people, why do we feel compelling to through any mud to the wall and hope that it sticks?
Then, we will see all these pretty amazing TDI's and such from Europe.
lev, i'm on your side! be a pal! you can't take a little borg-cube/xc90/drag-coefficient joke? are you not a star-trek geek? yes, all SUVs have lousy borg-cube-like drag coefficients compared with my jetta or my old Z28s or my future bald-man's dream C6-vette...
and thank you for posting the various SUV drag coefficients.
volvomax, good point that there aren't many vehicles which are fuel-efficient at 90 mph. you know of course that it's a quadratic thang: air resistance increases with the square of the airspeed.
my TDI jetta gets 48 mpg at 79.9 mph.
i'm a diesel buff now and am happy to see that for 2006 the chevy vans will offer duramax engines... those vans also have the drag coefficient of a borg cube, of course! (two borg cubes actually).
lev, i don't think writing congresscritters/etc will help to get more diesel vehicles available in USA, but thanks for the support! i think we just have to wait for the manufacturers to offer more modern diesel engine options using the post-2006 USA ultra-low-sulfur-diesel fuel, and then let the market decide whether the US consumer will buy more diesels.
6-speed Z28/vettes get about 29 mpg at 80+ mph... car & driver's record mpg in their extended 100 mph test was with a 6-speed corvette. there's actually a web page on the internet about a corvette diesel...
but of course neither a diesel corvette nor z28 nor jetta TDI will hold my family of 5 and all our florida-vacation stuff comfortably, and with 3 rows of seating, roll stability control, yaw control, and 32767 airbags.
sincerely, eli, one of "YOU PEOPLE"
The far portion of the Euro mirror has a different curvature from the near portion, so images change in size as they move across the mirror. I'm just fishing for a possible explanation other than a badly manufactured mirror.
Our neighbors with an XC90 2.5 have mentioned that their actual gas mileage does seem particularly sensitive to speeds in excess of 65 mph, hills or excess passenger loads. They average 22 mpg on the highway to their beach house in Delaware (flat terrain and speed strictly enforced at 55-60 mph), but have gotten as little as only 14 mpg going to thier ski house in western Maryland (hilly 3,000 foot elevation and 70 mph speed limits).
It can explain the difference more than the speed. I consistently (3 times in 2 month) get around 22 MPG on our trips to Mammoth Lakes ski resort - up to 6000 foot elevation, going steady at 70-75 MPH, except for a 4 "speed traps" along the way, where we slow down to 25 MPH
By the way - most of sedans in 90s had the drag coefficient somewhere from 0.33 to 0.4. It is only now they are getting bellow of 0.3.
So, being sensitive and protective of XC90, I did not get that borg cube joke, even if I do watch TNG frequently.
I think, we Americans very egocentric sometimes and believe that entire world should rotate around us. Some times it does not, and we miss a boat, like it was with the metric/standard system where we, Americans, pay through the nose maintaining two sets of tools, etc. Same situation exists with the diesels. While European drivers happily enjoy 30-40 MPG driving premium brands, we hope that the world manufacturers will cave in and develop those wonder-diesels for our strictly American brand of diesel fuel.
I am more of environmental protectionist than most of people I know, but we damage our nature more with the excessive energy that is required to get a premium gasoline vs. diesel fuel, as we ever will with the extra pollution related to exhaust fumes of modern diesel engine.
So, my call stays - let's encourage our representatives to adjust the environmental laws related to the diesel fuel and modern diesel engines.
Well, yes, please do! You also have to remember that the actual drag force is given by the drag coefficient times the cross sectional area of the vehicle. A proper comparison would be to multiply those drag coefficients by the cross sectional area of each of the vehicles. For a given drag coefficient the larger vehicle will experience greater drag.
tidester, host
The drag coefficient is a clear indication of how well do designers reduce the "boxiness" of a car.
0.36 means that a car experience just 36% of resistance of a box with the same overall dimensions. So, 0.36 is always better than 0.4, regardless of size.
Going down to 0.36 from 0.38 doesn't do you much good if the area goes up by 10% which only requires a 5% increase in linear dimension to "achieve." The variation of drag coefficients in your list is about 5-6% about the mean. I think the variation in area exceeds that so there can be a mileage penalty even when going to a "more aerodynamic" vehicle.
Obviously, it's better to reduce the drag coefficient from, say, 0.38 to 0.36 if the cross-section remains the same. But that's not the case.
tidester, host
Truly, I do not want to do that, but I do not like to be challenged in this manner.
#1. You oversimplify the relation of the resistance and the cross section. They are not proportional. The characteristics of the air flow are much more important than the cross section itself. If I can achieve a pure laminated current around the body, the drag is significantly (orders of magnitude) less than in the case when there are turbulences around the body. I.e. the oval body will have many times less drag than the rectangular body of the SAME cross section.
#2. The total drag IS NOT calculated by multiplying the drag coefficient x area. Once again, you are over simplifying.
The drag coefficient is a number that aerodynamicists use to model all of the complex dependencies of shape, inclination, and flow conditions on aircraft drag. This equation is simply a rearrangement of the drag equation where we solve for the drag coefficient in terms of the other variables.
The drag coefficient Cd is equal to the drag D divided by the quantity: density r times half the velocity V squared times the reference area A.
Cd = D / (A * .5 * r * V^2)
I almost certain, that in our case drag coefficient is very much size independent, given such a small difference in frontal areas. This is a true reflection of aerodynamic qualities of the design. And once again
0.36 is always better than 0.38 or 0.4.
P.S. Look this one up
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/shaped.html
You will see that the drag coefficient can vary from 1.28 to 0.295 for the SAME cross section.
XC90 - 1887
X5 - 1787
MDX - 1904
MB M350 - 2024
Jeep - 2045
Cadillac - 1821
Pacifica - 1898
Once again - XC90 is one of the best in this group.
It's just a discussion and I offered additional insights.
You oversimplify the relation of the resistance and the cross section.
If that is true then you oversimplified by presenting only the drag coefficient - which you apparently acknowledge in the remainder of your comments.
The drag coefficient is a number...
Yes, I am familiar with the concept! :-)
Let's move on - this is likely boring everyone else and we've passed the point of constructive dialog.
BTW - thanks for the numbers!
tidester, host
As for Diesels, the American public has rejected them, except for a few diehards. Unless something radical happens to the price of gasoline I really don't see this changing.
American public did not reject them. The oil industry has lobbied them out. Do not be naive. If the diesel will be 30 to 50 % cheaper than the gasoline, I am pretty sure a lot of people will jump on it. The price for the diesel fuel is heavily impacted by the additional taxes. It took a huge crude oil price surge, where taxes are less prominent in the overall price structure for the gasoline prices to catch up with the diesel.
Just my opinion.
the discussion of some airflow physics is plenty interesting to me, thank you all for making your points.
re V8 vs 2.5T, i might well have gone for the V8 were it available when i was buying. it appears that the V8 model is substantially more expensive. the X plan price for our 2.5T was just a tad over 40k - i wonder if a V8 would have been anywhere near that. ours has 3rd-row, parktronic, upgraded audio system, and a wood steering wheel. personally i think wood has no place in any vehicle but hey what can ya do. aside from the wooden wheel it had all the right options for us.
as for diesels, the USA public sure has rejected them. lev maybe you are blessed with enough youth that you don't remember the GM hack-job diesel 350s. there was even a chevette diesel way back when. i remember astounding smoke clouds from my friends 1984 dasher diesel automatic - what a slug that car was. but it was hilarious to watch through the smoke cloud as tailgators reacted when my pal floored it.
US public acceptance of diesels may change after 2006 especially if fuel prices keep climbing. we'll see. i understand that one reason the Euros like diesels so much is that there is a tax incentive in most of euro-land in addition to the mpg incentive.
i'm looking forward to some mpg reports from xc90 v8 people! and all yall - if you get a chance to take volvo's xc90 driver training - go for it - you'll be amazed at how well the xc90 reacts to massive flogging! TTFN!
Plus, been smacked on a head with huge taxes on a diesel fuel.
Modern diesels just about as much clean as a regular gasoline engines, use 25-30-50% less fuel.
Diesel fuel is much cheaper to produce (by the way the cheaper price on diesel in Europe is not a result of the tax breaks, but the lower cost to produce). So happy diesel owners in Europe enjoy tremendous savings. No wonder that it looks like 70-80% cars on the roads in Europe are the diesels. Everybody who has been in Europe lately can attest to it.
Every single premium brand - Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, VW has a nice line of diesels, and they just wait for the US environmental laws to loosen to bring them here. Mercedes and VW have done it already, and you can find a lot of very excited reviews about their TDI and CDI.
I don't know about other parts of the country, but we have alot of V8 orders and little or no V8 inventory.
The buying public has never been in love w/ Diesels. In case you've missed it the Oil industry sells alot of diesel fuel, to truckers.
As for the cost of fuel, taxes eat up alot of the cost of gasoline as well. Diesel has NEVER been 50% cheaper than gasoline and never will be.
Now if our gov't decided to change the gas tax policy then maybe diesels would become more popular here.
Think whatever you want. This mini-exchange just proves the degree of ignorance many Americans have about the rest of the world.
But blessed the ignorant, or whatever that saying is. One is happy, when he does not know what he is missing. Remember the story I have told...
As for whether diesel will ever be popular here in cars, hard to say. Diesel has 6 strikes against it: emissions (notably NOx and particulates) with stricter standards starting in 2007; low-quality diesel fuel compared to Europe; poor availability (only a third of stations carry diesel); high diesel cost in the U.S.; generally poor public perception; and competition from hybrid technology.
Nevertheless, diesel light engine production in North America is expected to more that triple in the next decade and Asia will more than double, so more diesel cars are possible.
Let's dispense with the stereotyping and stick to discussing the XC90.
tidester, host
last time I checked, air pollution policy was made by PhD engineer types in white shirts, pocket protectors, and ties - not Ted Kazinski (sic). If you don't want clean air in Southern California, that's fine. But those guys are not radicals. I know enviroradicals and they don't work at any of those agencies.
and, last time I checked, most people in LA want the air CLEANER not dirtier, so I'd say those guys are on the right track and are not radicals
maybe the word will eventually get out to folks that they could save a lot of money and drive nifty turbo diesels, but at least 99% of the autobuying public doesn't know that - we need to remember that this message board does not represent a fair cross section of the auto buying public
Europe is DIFFERENT than America
first, Europe has many different governments, whereas the U.S. has one (yes, and many state governments), and the EPA has jurisdiction over the air EVERYWHERE (unlike anything in Europe) - this gives SOME protection (very little) to the states downstream of polluting states, whereas there is no such protection in Europe. And the guys in Germany dont' really care that the air in Poland gets polluted from emissions in Germany. Yes, this is a simplistic analysis, but there is truth to it. (of course, the folks in Pennsylvania didn't care that the steel plant emissions destroyed lakes in New England, so it's not like the U.S. ahs bee perfect in this area)
Also, the American public wants its' lungs protected. I am guessing the Europeans don't care, since the state is gonna pay for their health care, and those lost work days don't diminish their take home pay.
As for pollution concerns in Europe, they care as much as we who refuse to bother ourselves with global emissions. But the big wildcard in all this is China where something like 40% of global growth in vehicle production will occur over the next decade.
Going back a few days, What Crash Test Scores Mean.
Steve, Host
"In Europe, diesel car shares nearly 50% of car production"
"The first reason of the large population of diesel cars in Europe is the price of diesel is much lower than that of gasoline despite fuel prices are rising. Many people choose it. The second reason is its good durability and steady performance. European diesel technology is very mature. Diesels have good acceleration and low noise so there are few differences in performance between gasoline car and diesel car. If Chinese automakers produce same type of diesels as those, I am sure they will be popular in China. The reason why diesel engine prevails in Europe is the price of fuels."
"According to the statistical data, there will be 600 million diesel engines in China by 2006"
http://www.green-diesel.com/english/news_c/news1.asp
I am going to take it back to the dealer again.
Can I demand a replacement car?
No, sorry.
The reason the headlight washers work is because the radiator is keeping the feed lines warm. Obviously, something is causing a blockage on the lines to the hood.