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
The difference between the LR3 and XC90 relative to thier functionality is huge. The LR3 is way up the list on off- road capability, but is also a gas hog and rougher rider on smooth paved roads. Handles much better than the old Discovery, but it's no Range Rover Sport. The XC90 is a great street vehicle, but probably not too good at tackleing logging roads. Volvo dealers will try to say otherwise, but the XC90 is much more in the car-based league of the MDX, IMO.
If I was going to use the capabilities of the LR3, I'd give it serious consideration. If not, you will be reminded at every fill up that you wasting them.
I'm sure your MDX would do just as well. Since we use them on the road 99% of the time, car based SUV's are the sensible choice. All we need is good ground clearance and AWD for those rare off-road trips.
Also how do you all feel about the cargo room? Is third row (7 passenger seating) standard on the XC90 or is it an option? How is the Nav system in the Volvo?
Overall level of satisfaction? Lots of questions I know but right now XC90 tops my list to get my wife when we do get a new car for her. Frankly we have the Jeep GC for an SUV and I don't plan on getting rid of it, but she does like the ride height SUVs afford her. I was thinking of the VW Toureag but can't get comfortable with the cost of ownership/reliability issues. Also considering an MDX which I'd like her to get but she feels that's a bit too boring, that the XC90 offers a bit more in the style category (although she's not overly excited about the XC90 either). Any guidance would be appreciated!
A couple of comments. I found the XC90 V8 to have very adequate power. It wasn't as quick as I expected, but definitely quicker than the MDX at all speeds tested, including highway merges. One thing I did notice, however, was a tendency for the 6-speed transmission to hunt for gears and shift a lot even when driving at fairly steady speeds. Take your foot off the gas and it's likely to shift. I don't know if Vovlo has reprogrammed the transmssion to make it a little less busy, but that was more of an annoyance for me and probably not a serious problem.
The Volvo beats the MDX IMO for interior and exterior style. Volvo seat support and comfort are among the best in the business. The leather seemed to be tighter and of higher quality. The exterior styling is a little sexier. However, the Vovlo's navigation system (2005 model) was not nearly as good as the MDX's. Which, on the MDX is linked to the voide control that also works for the Bluetooth phone. That was important to my wife who drives a lot in DC where hand held cell phone use is illegal.
I still think the XC90 V8 is one of the best premium SUV's out there. And now that domestic prices have come down (see offers of $6,000 off regularly), I think it would be an even tougher decision today. However, with 13,000 miles in 10 months on our MDX, it has been flawless and the thrid row utility has proved to be valuable.
Good luck. Both vehicles are winners. The only other SUV I've been very impressed with recently is the Range Rover Sport. But it's 5 passengers and about $60k, so not much use to us.
The 3 vehicles are in different price ranges with very different capabilities and styling. I'm a Jeep fan (have owned a CJ and the first Grand Cherokee) and I find the Commander ungainly and silly looking. They just hacked the proportions in an effort to mold the GC into a retro-looking 7-seater. Be sure to let whomever is going to use the rear seats actually sit in them because they are vestigial at best with a scary lack of crush space behind them. The Commander is ugly, handles less well than the GC and gulps gas. Good off-roader and reasonably well-appointed inside.
I can't say much about the LR3 because I haven't driven one but it is more costly than the XC90 and reviews point out its lackluster economy and handling. Great off-roader. I could live with it if cost were no object.
The XC90 is by far the most balanced package and value. Good manners, comfort, performance, safety, looks, and reasonable economy. The 3rd row is much more functional than the Commander although still designed for children or small adults.
Now, about those nagging sun visors. The roof slopes back sharply and the visors have no extension which can create an open area depending on the driver's position. I am over 6 feet with long legs and have a problem with side light sometimes. What I do is either run the seat a little forward or use a small window sun screen with suction cups (it stores nicely in the pouch at the front of the seat). An extension visor might work but would probably get in the way of the remote buttons on the visor and would complicate getting out of the car. My wife who is shorter does not seem to have a problem. You need to test drive the car to see how your normal seating position works.
Good luck with your decision. If you don't do serious off-roading the XC90 is a clear choice over the Commander and has significant advantages over the LR3 as a family hauler.
I'm sure one of the biggest decision makers will be when I drive each vehicle. Also, I'm not going to use it off road very much. The reason I need an AWD or a 4x4 is that I have gotten caught in several snow storms when I drive across the country from main home to my desert home in California (1,800 mile drive). The altitudes in New Mexico and Arizona are pretty high and the weather can change quickly.
My current vehicle, 2002 ML500 AWD, is perfect in treacherous situations. You barely notice the bad snowy/icy streets because the vehicle is so sure-footed.
Once, when I had my 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, I was caught in a snow storm on I-40 in Oklahoma. The interstate was at a dead stop because of the bad road condition but the side road that runs along the interstate was empty. Well, I just put it in four wheel drive LOW and drove across the side median, which had a huge dip and about 12 inches of snow and the Jeep didn't miss a beat. A Ford Explorer did the same thing before I did and just about didn't make it to the side road because of the incline. I knew then, that I always have to have an AWD or 4x4 for my traveling vehicle for this purpose.
Again, thanks for your input.
Mark156
I don't know much about the LR3 except if you get one make sure a dealer is close! I'm in a region that is 3 hours either way from a Land Rover dealer. The few brave souls who have bought one have put quite a few more miles in going back and forth to the dealer than they anticipated.
My wife and my mother took a couple 2 hres ride back there and they found it very comfortable.
The Volvo and the MDX are 2 excellent vehicles. You really should try out the third seats for yourself (or whoever you plan to take back there) and see what works best for you.
Can't talk about the LR3, it looks nice but I have not look closely into it.
Good luck!
I still have about two weeks before I decide on the vehicle I want. I guess at my age, I've bought a lot of vehicles in the past and I have always wanted to think them through as how my needs will fit in.
What is really bothering me is that the Volvo headrests are not adjustable once you move them to the side. I just returned from a 600 mile trip in my ML500 and I can tell you that I move my sunvisor quite a bit to keep the sun out of my eyes and on the side of my face. I can see now that the Volvo will not work. Also, the Volvo headrest is not comfortable; it's too close to your head. On my Mercedes, I can rest my head on the head rest very comfortably.
I looked at the Jeep Commander again and I think that will have to wait until I check out the Range Rover LR3. Seeing the Jeep again it seem to look on the cheap side. The fold down third seats seem awfully high. Although the Land Rover doesn't have any wood on the dash, I think I could live with the grey plastic since I like the way the third row seats fold completely flat. I have not yet driven the LR3 and that will make it a contender or not.
I looked at the Cadillac SRX and the sunvisors don't move just like the Volvo. Funny thing, the STS has sunvisors that adjust fully.
Like I said in a previous post, the fun thing about car shopping is checking them ALL out fully!
One thing I didn't mention about my Jeep experience in the snow, I followed the tracks of a previous vehicle so I could see that there were no rocks, deep crevices, etc. The tracks were not totally clear, but I could see I wasn't falling into a ditch.
Mark
Mark
I am close to making a purchase decision on an XC90 V8 AWD and it does seem that there are many happy, long term, multiple Volvo owners out there. The salesman told me the transmission is built by Yamaha, can anyone confirm this? It's really as much a point of interest vs. anything else as it does seem Volvo produces quality vehicles that can last over time. I have seen my fair share of older Volvos around (paint jobs on those seem real faded but at least the cars are still running!).
Any owner experiences and input is appreciated!
Do you know who builds the 6 speed tranny's for the V8?
Now, the headrest. It's different than other cars, as are the Volvo seats which are designed to prevent whiplash injury. Try all the seat adjustments--back tilt, seat height (front & back)--to see if you can get comfortable. When it fits, program that into one of the 3 memory positions. There's also the lower back support which can affect seating posture. If it still isn't comfortable, well, you may be outside the design range. In the end, one size does not fit all. The only person I've known who had a problem with the seats had a pony tail that hit the headrest.
Very clear.
Accepts voice commands as well.
Any bluetooth compatible phone will work.
mine is a Razr.
It's been some time since I've been here but I'm glad that this forum is still going strong. My wife has been driving her XC90 for almost 23000 miles and the tires are almost at the point where they should be replaced. They're the 18 inch wheels and the 235/60/18 tires are a pain to get replaced. The stock Michelin Pilot tires are, from what I've read, only good for about 30,000 miles. I've also read, at a tire forum, that these tires rated about a 3 on a scale of 10. The tires were used on many makes and models and the two most common complaints were - (1) Tires ride horribly and (2) tires wear quickly - which I agree with - the ride on bumpy roads - "horrible" - if the tires are not ideally inflated - based on the load (for those who don't know what I'm talking about, look under/in the gas resovoir cover). My recommendation is if you're going to buy a XC90 buy the 17" wheels - they're a whole lot easier to find tires for and from what I've heard, ride better. From what I've figured out only two manufacturers make a 235/60/18 - Michelin and Pirelli. Both rated poorly and had a very short wear life.
Finally, my question - Has anyone replaced their tires with a diffrent tire - that is a tire that is other than the stock dimensions. I've seen a few 235/65/18 tires that rate far better than the michelin 235/60/18. I know the side wall will be taller, but other than that I don't see any limitations. The 235/65/18 won't be so tall that it will effect the turning radius. Also I really don't like the way the stock tires look it almost looks to small. I think the 235/65/18 might look better.
Please feel free to bombard me with any information you would like to share on this topic
Thanks.
Np matter what the tire, you have to look at the treadware rating.
A soft tire will grip the road better, and is safer for an SUV because of this.
Now, you can find tires in a slightly different size that will work just fine. Going to a 65 series won't change things much at all.
Just remember, the harder the compound the less grip the tire has.
Thanks for your inputs - Glad to see you're both still checking up on us goofball owners. Getting from A to Z is not a problem but ask one of us some legitimate car questions and we scatter. Anyway - to the point - which tire do guys recommend? I heard about the Nokian tires on another forum and they seemed to be touted highly. Also do you know a good place to buy tires online.
FWIW, I have 17" wheels and find the stock Michelin 4x4 Synchrones to be fine for my 3-season driving conditions but switch to Gislaved winter tires this time of year. I'd buy the Michelins again since I don't see anything better in that size and I'm hesitant to change sizes.
I recently replaced the tires on my Acura TL 6-speed through Tire Rack and I was very pleased. I had been prepared to pay $800-$1,000 for a set of replacement "high performance" tires by Pirelli or Michelin. They suggested Avon Techs that ran $550 for the set that are rated higher for both handling and tread wear. They also suggested going from 235/45 to 245/45 to better fit the (large) 9" wide standard wheel. Shipped the tires direct to my dealer and the entire process was painless.
On another matter, we have a 2005 MDX with 17" wheels that also uses narrow 235 series tires. We are still 20,000 miles short of replacement, but I am wondering whether 235 width tires are really adequate for a 4,500 lb AWD SUV intended to do a little off roading and get through snow belt winters. Even our crappy Isuzu Trooper had 255 width tires. Everything else that we considered had 265 to 285 width. The Acura and Volvo appear to have tires better suited for a fair weather minivan than an SUV. And that narrow width very likely contributes to low tread life (not to mention poorer handling). Anyone else noticed this?
Tread rating is an indication of a tire's compound and that is your indicator of wear.
A wider tire will handle better, but there are drawbakcs.
A wider tire tends to wander over bad roads, also wider tires have shorter, stiffer sidewalls and don't ride as well. Lastly, turning radius is affected.
How wide a tire is has zero to do w/ wear.
Tread rating is an indication of a tire's compound and that is your indicator of wear.
Not according to Tire Rack. Yes, the treadwear rating is an attempt to provide a comparative measure of tread life on the same vehicle. A 400 should last 33% longer than a 300. But the type, weight and design of the vehicle has a lot to do with how the tire performs and lasts. According to Tire Rack, narrow tires (235) will not last as long as wider (265) on a 4,500+ lb SUV, even if they have the same rating. The heavier SUV (compared to a sedan or coupe) will put much more friction per square inch of patch and the fact that most SUV's have a higher center of gravity places more stress on the sides of the tread of a narrower tire during turning. That's an honest attempt for me to paraphrase. Call them yourself for a better explanation.
A wider tire tends to wander over bad roads, also wider tires have shorter, stiffer sidewalls and don't ride as well. Lastly, turning radius is affected.
Wider tires have taller, not shorter sidewalls. A 235/65 tire has a sidewall height of 153mm (65% of 235mm), whereas a 265/65 has a sidewall height of 172mm (65% of 265mm).
Wider tires, given similar tread patterns, will absorb road imperfections with less "wandering" not more. Narrower tires would be more easily thrown off line by bumps. Why do you think a mountain or hybrid bicycle has wider tires than a road racer? To better absorb imperfections.
Turning radius is almost completely dependent upon the steering range (maximum turning angle) and the overall wheel & tire diameter, not width (except as width slightly affects diameter). I have a tight U-turn that I do daily to park in front of my house. The increase from 235's to 245's has not made any noticable difference in my TL. But if I jumped up to 18" or larger wheels, I am sure the difference would be immediately apparant.
My point on the XC90's and MDX's narrow tires was not to suggest they would suddenly perform like a Cayenne or X5 with wider tires. Absolutely not, with their relatively spongy suspensions. But even the tread depth on our TL nearly matches the MDX and both are far less than our old Trooper, new GX470 or any of the other SUV's we looked at that would not be confused with a minivan in purpose. This winter should tell us how it performs - we are expecting an additional 18" of snow in the next 36 hours on top of the 6" we currently have.
A wider tire will allow the stresses put on it by a vehicles weight to be spread more easily over the footprint of the tire. A narrower tire will place that weight on a smaller contact patch.
Also, for a given rolling diameter, a wider tire does have a shorter sidewall.
You always want to maintain as close to stock diameter of wheel and tire as possible.
If you have an XC90 w/ 17"s and you go to 18"s your sidewall will be smaller, period. Smaller yet if you go to a 20" wheel. Changing tire sizes within the same wheel size is a minimal change in most cases. If you go too wide you will have rubbing issues.
As for wider tires and road imperfections, anyone who has owned a corvette or porsche can attest to the effect known a tramlining, where a wide tire follows the grooves in a road and causes the steering wheel to twitch. Also, truly wide performance tires do not have the same close together tread pattern of a narrow all season tire. A performance tires tread blocks are spaced far apart for heat dissapation, this exacerbates the tramlining effect.
Turning radius is dependent on the steering rack, also the space inside the wheel housing. Diameter of a wheel and tire has almost no effect. Width of the wheel and tire can cause rubbing the wheel well. Volvo installs steering stops on its models that have 18" wheels. This affects the sedans only.
Agreed. And that's one of several reasons Tire Rack indicated that a wider tire on an SUV would likely last longer. Mind you, they were explaining why they thought 235 width tires were too narrow of a design for a true 4,500 lb SUV, and a flaw of both the MDX and XC90. They were not recommending simply putting wider tires on the MDX for the clearance reasons you mentioned.
The rest of your comments address issues I was not responding to in my original post. If you recall, I simply commented that the width of tires on the XC90 and MDX were excessively narrow compared to other serious SUV's we considered and may be partly to blame for poor tread life and performance under certain conditions.
However, for what it's worth, we happen to own a Porsche 2005 911 S with standard Pirelli P-Zero 295/30 19" rear wheels/tires. In 3,500 mostly highway miles, I have not experienced the "tramlining" effect you describe. In fact, of all the cars I've owned, the 911 tracks like it's on rails with virtually no steering input required to maintain a straight line at 80 mph. Our MDX and TL require considerably more steering input.
I suspect Volvo's and Acura's decision to go with narrow width tires and wheels as standard equipment has a lot more to do with value engineering than real engineering. And the assumption that neither of these vehicles will see serious SUV duty compared to a Land Cruiser or Range Rover.
Dave
Volvo: nice layout, strong engine, the sun visors don't adjust once moved to the side and are too short, headrests are too close to the head for me, nice third seat that lay completely flat, nice tailgate configuration.
Acura MDX: The style will be changing soon (2007?). Only a six cylinder engine offered.
Lexus GX470: Nice vehicle but the third seats do not fold flat as they hang on the side taking up cargo space. The big "swing-out" door is huge and will not protect you from rain when loading and if a car is parked close to you, the gate cannot be opened all of the way and may be damaged or scratched.
I've been comparing the Land Rover LR3 to the Lexus and the Lexus fails in almost every category but I'm sure the reliability is of Toyota quality.
Since the Volvo has the lift/tail gate combination, you will not have to worry if a car is parked close to you. I did find the center dash readouts hard to read in the sun.
Just my opinion, Mark
The XC90 V8 would probably have been my choice based upon its balance of functionality and driving dynamics. But my wife selected the MDX based upon the size and ease of use of the second / third rows, amentities such as Bluetooth phone, On Star, better navigation system, XM radio, etc. And I must admit that I was most comfortable with Acura relative to long term cost of ownership and reliability. We heard a few too many post 70,000 mile Volvo stories of expensive repairs - although in fairness, the XC90 appears to be a very solidly built vehicle.
Mark156 identified the same issues that deterred us from the GX470 - the third row is almost useless and cargo space is compromised severly unless they are completely removed.
The LR3 had just come out and we briefly considered it. However, it has far more off-roading capability than we would use - with a severe gas mileage penalty. Plus, the highway ride was not that great - handling was much better than the old Discovery, but not as good as the Acura or Volvo, IMO.
The three vehicles you are considering are all very good, with different attributes. You just need to pick the one that suits your needs best.
Wider tires with larger, deeper tread grooves will outperform a narrower tire under almost any conditions. And that includes rain, snow, slush or even ice. On secondary roads in my home town "cutting through" the snow isn't possible. It gets packed down to a firm base that anything short of a Great Lakes icebreaker will roll on top of. And under those conditions, the last thing you want is a narrow tire.
What the wider tires won't get you is better gas mileage or as smooth or quiet of a ride on a dry highway. And I think the XC90 and MDX are geared towards that performance criteria much more so than, say a GX470 or LR3. I am not comparing the XC90 or MDX to the Cayenne or X5, which are geared to providing sport sedan handling and do not necessarily fare well with their high performance summer tires in the winter muck.
So the best solution depends on your winter conditions. I personally try to narrow down my tires in winter. My wife S-60 runs on 235-45-17 in summer and 205-60-16 during winter.
BTW I lived for 5 years in Labrador City, where roads are covered with packed snow from November to April-May. The rest of my 48 years were spent in Quebec City where we get our fair share of snow-ice-slush and whatever in between.
http://www.tirerack.com/winter/tech/techpage.jsp?techid=126
I think the confusion lies in what I've been comparing are the deep, wide grooved tires 265+ width that are standard on the GX470 and LR3 with the relatively shallower/narrower groved 235 width tires on the MDX and XC90. I agree that wider versions of these tires would tend to float more than narrower versions.
I must defer to anyone from Labrador City. Even though my hometown gets 120" of snow a year, you are about 500 miles north of my comfort zone. That is serious - and I am sure beautiful - wilderness territory. How far are you from the nearest Volvo dealer?
I understand your point but I do think real winter tires are the way to go in winter. Their rubber does not turn hard as rock below 32F.
I have done my homework, and now would like to get some personal experiences/opinions.
I will need the replacement tires for the stock Michelin Pilot 18" on XC90 2.5T AWD. I have 30K on them and was generally satisfied with the tires, except that they are dismal on a snow.
I live in California, but make frequent trips to ski resorts during winter months, so I am looking into all-season tires with the decent snow handling and long thread life.
My 2 short list replacement candidates are Bridgestone Dueler Alenza and Continental CrossContact. Any advise on those? These tires are 255/55-18 and I have been told that it is completely compatible with the stock 235/60-18 size.
http://www.nokiantires.com/newsite/tires_popup.cfm?id=17
I've been loosing sleep over this for about a week. I really like the XC90 and am anticipating going down to the dealer today to strike a deal on an '04 with low miles. I've read all the horror stories about the XC90 eating tires, breaks, trannys, etc... Some people love them and others have filed lemon law complaints. Is this car a piece of junk or is it something I could drive for 10 years with minimum complaint (like my Cherokee, believe it or not). What questions should I be asking to the dealer? I've done a lot of research but people are all over the place with this car.
Thanks,
cbrose
i know it worked for me when i had a large pickup truck.
Check the service history of the car you are looking at, if it checks out ok then go for it.
Where did you get this data from on the percentages you state?
Sadly, the vast majority of people who are happy w/ their vehicles don't come on the internet to say how happy they are. They only show up when they want to complain.
Naturally, these few people can skew perceprtion.
Both very good posts...Burosky, that's a big part of the analysis I'm doing right now and why we're still leaning strongly towards the XC90. My wife would just not be as excited driving the MDX as the XC90 so that's a significant factor.
VolvoMax, you are correct about the vocal minority. I guess that I could point you to Infiniti as an example of, at least based on my reads, a car company (Nissan) that puts out fun and reliable vehicles (i.e. G35, M35/45). Check out those boards and you won't see the same frequency of complaints. Same thing for M car specialty sites like FA. Just lots of real happy, satisfied owners. Sure there are a few far and between posts...but real few and far between. I read boards almost every night (a real sickness perhaps) so I've read hundreds, probably thousands of posts in just the past year. I've driven Nissans for twenty years and have loved each example. Good solid cars and very reliable. I look forward in the next year or two to picking up an M car.
I think I'm within a month of making a purchase....will let you know what happens.
Thanks for your responses!
Give the car a thorough look and test drive as you would with any brand. In particular check for even tire wear, smooth acceleration from a stop and when passing, squeaky brakes, noises (body, suspension, tires, bearings, etc.), audio system quality, and proper aiming of the headlights. Ask the dealer if they provide a free Volvo loaner during service visits and what service is included (my '04 included the first 4 services excluding synthetic motor oil). Have them agree to change any programmable settings to your satisfaction--for example you can have one-click door open, auto-door-lock at speed, and a darker auto-dimming rear-view mirror.
Enjoy, It's a great car.