Performance Tested - 2015 Volvo S60 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com

Performance Tested - 2015 Volvo S60 Long-Term Road Test

We took our 2015 Volvo S60 T6 Drive-E to the test track to see how the redesigned sedan performed.

Read the full story here

throwback

It's a porky little car. I guess that's why the acceleration times are lower than I would have expected with 295lb/ft of torque and over 300 HP.

yellowbal

Barely faster than an Accord V6 and the Volvo has a much more complicated engine.

cx7lover

Well, it is an Accord V6.. a V6. I would hope it's not complicated. The last thing a V6 needs to be is complicated. This turbo 4 has a more sophisticated design.

I have the 2013 S60 RDesign with the turbo inline 6 cyl. Lag is barely noticeable with this engine. The transmission lags behind the engine in this thing.

legacygt

The acceleration numbers are not very impressive UNLESS this thing turns in some fantastic real world efficiency numbers. I'm not going to even consider the EPA numbers, particularly with a boosted engine engineered to score high on efficiency tests. Time will tell. But the earlier comment refers to an Accord V6. If the Volvo doesn't significantly best the Accord V6's fuel efficiency then we're looking at a whole lot of complexity with no real payoff.

agentorange

The brakes blow chunks. Fade after four stops from 60 MPH? Epic fail, IMHO. The UK magazine Autocar used to give brakes a proper workout, Their test protocol was 5 or 10 (memory fail) successive stops from the 1/4 mile terminal speed. That sorts out the cars that have brakes and those that don't.

fordescortgt

Sad to see the brakes are weak here. I have a 2015 volvo s60 r-design. I know when that model came out in 2012 and was tested on the track the testers got the brakes to fade/fail and then volvo came bake for 2013 and added larger re-calibrated brakes. Hoepfully they will address. Mine feel great but do not take it to the track so really cannot comment. I really wish they were keeping the 3.0l (at least in R design Models) It is a great engine and when I can keep the RMS under 2000 I see over 30 MPG on the highway, unfortunately it is geared to do this between 55-60, so at real highway speed it starts to erode fast. I wish it had the added 2 gears.

fordson1

Forty-seven grand and the OEM tires are so poor that even in an aggressive size and aspect ratio, and even with a neutral vchassis, it's limited to .84g on the skidpad.

bassracerx

fordson1 said:

Forty-seven grand and the OEM tires are so poor that even in an aggressive size and aspect ratio, and even with a neutral vchassis, it's limited to .84g on the skidpad.

considering they are not "performance" tires that is actually quite good. I was expecting a bit more performance from this car just like everyone else but this is not a "sport" sedan it is just a luxury sedan with a lot of creature comforts/safety with a decent amount of horsepower.

legacygt

Not a "sport" sedan. Bad tires. Weak brakes. Creature comforts over performance. The comments here reflect exactly why Volvo's sales numbers are bordering on becoming irrelevant in the US market. Nobody knows what these cars are supposed to be. And they're charging pretty steep prices for enigmatic products. They've got a lot riding on the XC90. We'll see if that helps the brand figure things out.

torquefill

Wow! There's a lot of criticism in the comments here...but if you read the test results of the 2015 BMW 428i with M Sport Dynamic Handling Package, it's skid pad numbers are the same! I would expect more from BMW who HAS figured out where their position is in the marketplace! See the test results here for comparison: http://www.edmunds.com/bmw/4-series-gran-coupe/2015/road-test-specs.html