| hockeyplayer |
Have been hearing alot about the Volvo XC90 the last week so I decided to look into the pricing and options.:eek: I was blown away by the pricing compared to the MDX. I started adding up options to do a comparison. They want people to pay 450 for a color other then black or white???There are some neat features but of course they are hidden in packages. One was a/c control for the third row seats. I like the dash and interior but I think it looks like a stationwagon. Still have sights on the MDXw/nav.
http://www.volvoxc90.com/xc90/specs.shtml |
|
|
| mogur |
I got to drive two extensively as part of a vehicle evaluation. Frankly, it is a great driving vehicle and I like the looks and interior a lot. It's a little more money but I think you definitely get what you pay for in the difference - I'd likely buy it if I was buying a SUV today. I also like that you can get a 2 wheel drive version for those who have no need for 4 wheel drive..
Tom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hockeyplayer
[B]Have been hearing alot about the Volvo XC90 the last week so I decided to look into the pricing and options.:eek: |
|
|
| torchny |
quote:
Originally posted by mogur
I got to drive two extensively as part of a vehicle evaluation. Frankly, it is a great driving vehicle and I like the looks and interior a lot. It's a little more money but I think you definitely get what you pay for in the difference - I'd likely buy it if I was buying a SUV today. I also like that you can get a 2 wheel drive version for those who have no need for 4 wheel drive..
Tom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hockeyplayer
[B]Have been hearing alot about the Volvo XC90 the last week so I decided to look into the pricing and options.:eek:
Does it really look like a taller stationwagon? I felt the same way when I browsed through the pictures on the web.... |
|
|
| mogur |
I didn't think so and actually think it is quite attractive. It does look better in person than in the photos but if I was going to change one thing, it would be the tailights...
quote:
Originally posted by torchny
Does it really look like a taller stationwagon? I felt the same way when I browsed through the pictures on the web....
|
|
|
| hockeyplayer |
| Priced out the 208hp model with comprable options to mdx at a shade over 42,000. That is not as high as I thought . How much will it hold its value and will dealers be be trying the "sell at or above msrp" gig. How did the "geartronic" transmission work? I wish the mdx came with some sort of manual type transmission. Still looks like a stationwagon to me. Just one man's opinion though.:cool: |
|
|
| sstclairs |
| When I price '03 MDX (with expected 2.5% increase), Touring with DVD, no NAV, and then price similar T6 XC90 with comparable options, I get the MDX at $42K and the XC90 at $48K. Although the additional safety features of the XC90 - especially side curtain airbags, stiffer roof, rollover stability control - and the stereo (Dolby II, 300 watts) make it very attractive, my concerns over first year reliability and the 4 speed transmission have me leaning to getting an '03 MDX and waiting one or two years before considering trade up to XC90. With the MDX holding value well, it looks like this would cost $5K to $8k to drive the MDX for 2 years. |
|
|
| navybean |
| Even though I have an MDX, I would have to say the volvo looks a little better, but the VW Touareg looks alot better!! |
|
|
| wmquan |
There might be a delay in introducing the XC90, at least in some countries.
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX?14@@.ef06db9/368
The MDX was delayed twice when it launched (first from earlier 2000 as an early 2001 model year vehicle, to September, and then from September to October). So it's not surprising with a new model.
However, Acura didn't compensate owners like Volvo seems to be doing! Nice touch, though I'm not sure if they're doing this for everyone in every country. Fat chance that Acura would do something like this. |
|
|
| AikiMDX |
linky
Sounds very impressive. |
|
|
| vicpai |
quote:
Originally posted by AikiMDX
linky
Sounds very impressive.
............I'm very very impressed. Sometime back when I'd viewed that rollover video showing the XC90 barrel rolling over several times, with it's roof structure INTACT (WOW!!! :29: ) I was impressed. Now this RSC system makes it even more amazingly impressive!!! |
|
|
| sstclairs |
I absolutely agree that the safety features of the Volvo are outstanding, and am somewhat disappointed that Acura didn't include at least side-curtain airbags since they clearly have the technology (in the Accord).
Despite the significant safety advantage, unless I am really swayed by seeing the XC90 in person this Thursday (local dealer road show), I will be placing my MDX order Friday. I believe the MDX is a very safe vehicle, albeit one notch below the XC90.
My lean toward the MDX is based on a significant savings for comparably equipped models - the XC90 T6 model I would order would be $ 48,500, compared with $42,500 for the MDX. I also prefer the MDX styling, although obviously this is purely subjective.
Finally, I am leery of the T6 engine/transmission and associated poor gas mileage, and of the potential for 1st model year bugs and glitches. I'm not persuaded by those that say that the XC90 has few new parts (apparently most are used in other current Volvo models) and that this launch is "too important to Volvo" for there to be glitches. NOBODY gets it (exactly) right the first time out. |
|
|
| catbert |
| I got an invitation, and plan to attend, the unveiling of the XC90 at the local dealership. I'll report back afterwards... |
|
|
| MDXtrous |
| Official frontal crash results have been released for the MDX, one of the best, until we see the tests for the Volvo the claim that it's safer than the MDX is just calculated guess at this point |
|
|
| cardingtr |
| Don't know if its been posted here but MotorTrend just named Volvo XC90 SUV of the Year. I want to see how they based the rating though... |
|
|
| sstclairs |
No surprise, for anyone reading my previous posts: the MDX for me. XC90 introduction tonite (very chic, great wine, sat in but didn't test drive).
Big pluses for the XC90: the safety (wow!), the tailgate (wow!). Small pluses: rear entry (to 3rd row seats) either side, moveable 2nd row seats, stereo system.
Big minuses for the XC90: T6 gas mileage(wow!), possible fit/finish issues. Small minuses: lots of plastic on exterior, interior doesn't feel or look spacious, NAV system location and quality, essentially aftermarket rear entertainment system.
Big pluses for the MDX: gas mileage (despite premium gas), interior sense of spaciousness, elegance of interior (yes, even the fake wood contributes), NAV system location and quality. Small pluses: reclining seats 2nd and 3rd row, integrated rear entertainment system.
Big minuses for the MDX: lack of side-curtain airbags, special stability control. Small minuses: plastic wood.
I need to stop. It isn't even a contest for me: MDX. Not to mention $5,000 less apples to apples price comparison. |
|
|
| vcolangelo |
I stopped paying attention to Motor Trend awards when they announced the Chevy Caprice as "Car of the Year" in 1977. Not too obvious that they also heavily weigh volume of advertising in their criteria. Other notables include the Corvair and the Javelin.
I think Volvo makes a reliable box with unfortuante dated styling that serves a segment of the market very well. To me, that's a better "claim to fame" than being a Motor Trend Anything of the Year! |
|
|
| DrewSRX |
quote:
Originally posted by vcolangelo
I stopped paying attention to Motor Trend awards when they announced the Chevy Caprice as "Car of the Year" in 1977. Not too obvious that they also heavily weigh volume of advertising in their criteria. Other notables include the Corvair and the Javelin.
You do know that the Acura MDX was named 2001 SUV of the year by those same people, Motor Trend, don't you? Just wondering...
quote:
I think Volvo makes a reliable box with unfortuante dated styling that serves a segment of the market very well. To me, that's a better "claim to fame" than being a Motor Trend Anything of the Year!
That isn't really true IMHO. Have you seen any new Volvo lately? Acura's look more like boxes with dated styling than the new Volvo's do. Compare the S40, V40, S60, C70, V70, S80, XC70, XC90 to the RS-X, TL, RL, TL-X, and MDX.
Hmm...doesn't look like a box to me:
 |
|
|
| AikiMDX |
| Pics from the Anaheim Auto Show (not taken by me): |
|
|
| MARFONG |
sstclairs,
I agree with most of your assessments of the XC90 and MDX. I had the opportunity to test drive the 2 different engines offerred by the XC90. I was very impressed by the handling capabilities of the XC90 and its Roll Stability Control system. It feels more stable than the MDX on turns. For sure, the safety features of the Volvo are very desirable (hopefully, Acura will offer these later).
The interior of the MDX is more comfortable and luxurious. I found it more difficult to get into the 3rd seat area of the XC90, the first step into that area takes some effort, I was concerned about easily slipping...side steps or running boards would be a necessity for ease of entry and exit of that area.
I liked the exterior appearence of the XC90...like that of the X-5. I preferred it over that of the MDX.
Soooo...if the choice came down to buying a MDX or XC90....difficult!!
Safety is a big concern of mine. |
|
|
| sstclairs |
Didn't get to test drive it, and from all accounts the safety features are outstanding in practice as well as theory. If safety is very heavily weighted, difficult to argue with the XC90.
One small, perhaps neglible safety feature that is better in the MDX is visibility to blind spots and rear visibility through the windows. The XC90 has virtually none, whereas the MDX appears to have as mcuh as it is possible to have. I think this contributes to the MDX's superior sense of spaciousness.
Ultimately, I might have chosen the XC90 but for two things: 1) gas mileage, 2) 1st model year. My next decision point will come in 2004, when the XC90 comes out with the improved engine/transmission (and has debugged the initial annoyances). However, I am expecting the '04 MDX to have safety features comparable to the XC90 by then, so the choice may be just as difficult, and the end result the same.
Steve
==============================================
'03 MDX Touring Nav RES Midnite Blue Pearl on order, body side molding, upgrade to Focal speakers and Manik side steps planned |
|
|
| MDXtrous |
quote:
Originally posted by sstclairs
However, I am expecting the '04 MDX to have safety features comparable to the XC90 by then, so the choice may be just as difficult, and the end result the same.
By then BMW will have their X5 Plus out, which will have seating for 7. It will make it even more difficult, not to mention the RX350... |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
The WSJ has a lenghty article on the XC90, saying it will "raise the bar for SUV safety."
All 6500 of the cars to be built this year have already been presold. It will start at $37K and top out at $45K. They said the number one selling point is eagerness to have the latest safety features; specifically rollover sensors and wall-to-wall airbags.
They speculate that Volvo's heavy promotion of its safety features will force other manufacturers to make their models safer as well. |
|
|
| A2MDXer |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
The WSJ has a lenghty article on the XC90, saying it will "raise the bar for SUV safety."
All 6500 of the cars to be built this year have already been presold. It will start at $37K and top out at $45K. They said the number one selling point is eagerness to have the latest safety features; specifically rollover sensors and wall-to-wall airbags.
They speculate that Volvo's heavy promotion of its safety features will force other manufacturers to make their models safer as well.
I have not seen the article but it sounds like a press release. Gee, I wonder if Volvo had any role in this article?:p |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by DrewSRX
Have you seen any new Volvo lately? Acura's look more like boxes with dated styling than the new Volvo's do. Compare the S40, V40, S60, C70, V70, S80, XC70, XC90 to the RS-X, TL, RL, TL-X, and MDX.
Hmm...doesn't look like a box to me:
Hey this isn't a cutdown post; I like the new look Volvos. HOWEVER my Acura TL-S does not look like a box.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| sstclairs |
Hey, the XC90 safety features are real, and are better than those of the MDX (except I think overall visibility is much better in the MDX).
I purchased an MDX despite that, for various reasons, but do hope (see my post above) that Acura wakes up and adds safety features comparable - or better - than those of the XC90 soon.
Side curtain airbags should be a no-brainer, already in the Accord. Most importantly, I would like the MDX rollover control to rival or better the XC90. I know VSA is present in the '03, but Volvo's appears from reports to be a significant improvement on standard VSA (although it would be nice to see a side-by-side comparison of the MDX and XC90 in terms of rollover and stability tests).
Steve |
|
|
| hockeyplayer |
I have seen alot of opinions dislayed about the lack of side curtain airbags now. Every time I go back to my brochure and in my eyes it shows an airbag on the side of the front seats? Am I looking at something completely wrong? I am sure that the dealer said this as well? Gonna go look at my owners manual now...
3 minutes later....
The owners manual states that it indeed has side airbags. It says that they will deploy only on the side of impact and that the sensors in the passenger side will override if no person is present. |
|
|
| MDXtrous |
quote:
Originally posted by hockeyplayer
I have seen alot of opinions dislayed about the lack of side curtain airbags now. Every time I go back to my brochure and in my eyes it shows an airbag on the side of the front seats? Am I looking at something completely wrong? I am sure that the dealer said this as well? Gonna go look at my owners manual now...
3 minutes later....
The owners manual states that it indeed has side airbags. It says that they will deploy only on the side of impact and that the sensors in the passenger side will override if no person is present.
Yes, the MDX does have side impact air bags that deploy from the side of the front seats.
Curtain air-bags refer to airbags that go up the A-pillar and goes up along the roofline to protect drivers and passengers' heads in case of impact. That's what the MDX does not have. |
|
|
| sstclairs |
...and in the XC90 the side curtain airbags are present for all 3 rows of seats.
Steve |
|
|
| wmquan |
Not sure if this was mentioned here yet, but another interesting tidbit we got from Edmunds' discussion is that the XC90 has no provision for childseats in the third row. No top-tether anchors, and no LATCH points. Most childseats need at least the top-tether anchor to secure the seat.
Apparently Volvo does not recommend childseats in the third row.
Acura recommends against rear-facing seats in the third row, but forward-facing is fine. I think MB says both are fine in the third row.
There was some claim that Volvo has "traditionally" advised against this, but Volvo also made a big deal about how safe their third row was (e.g. sacrificing legroom to get more crumple space behind the seat).
This could be a significant limitation to some because Volvo is ignoring the new generation of childseats that go significantly beyond the standard 40 lbs. You can't put them in the third row of the XC90. You'd have to transition your kids to a conventional booster first, or leave them in the second row (which only hampers access to the third row). |
|
|
| AikiMDX |
| From Volvo's web site (hope this hasn't been posted previously): |
|
|
| MDXtrous |
quote:
Originally posted by AikiMDX
From Volvo's web site (hope this hasn't been posted previously):
Nice one Aiki. From this, it sure looks like Volvo took a winning solution with the size of the MDX and the shape/design of the BMX and amalgamated into the XC90... |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by AikiMDX
Linky
Interesting comment in there:
"That's because the second-row seat is comfortable only for two adults, and the hard-to-reach third row seat is best suited to two children."
Volvo splits the second row 40/20/40. I guess that may have made the middle of the second row uncomfortable for a center passenger. The integrated booster also might have something to do with it. |
|
|
| Phlyper |
| has anyone driven the different engine options for the XC90? The T6 seems to compare favorably to the X on paper, but how does the 2.5T do? I know it will fall behind the X but can it handle the "typical" SUV workload adequetly or is it just too small to carry this vehicle? |
|
|
| AikiMDX |
Lots o pics of the XC90:
linky
I have been reading opinions on the engine choices that are all over the map. The opinions range from the T5 matching power to the MDX (doubt that) to the T6 being the only engine people should consider for decent acceleration. You can find discussions on the engines at volvospy.com in their forums or at Edmunds. Can you tell that my wife has asked me to look into it as a possible car for her?
For those interested in the RES, it is a DIO for the XC90.
Also, according to Volvo's web site, the third row is covered in real leather.
The second row can be moved forward and locked into place creating additional leg room for the third row.
The minidisc player in some of the pics that have been floating around will supposedly not be available in the US.
I have read that maintenance on Volvo's tends to run similar to MB or BMW without the free maintenance they provide. Anyone with knowledge in that area? |
|
|
| AikiMDX |
Autoweek article on XC90 safety:
"Volvo strives to show its XC90 “SUV” is as safe as its station wagons and sedans"
linky |
|
|
| AikiMDX |
Lots of high-res pics of XC90 plus link to brochure etc.
linky
** Edited link ** |
|
|
| Maik |
quote:
Originally posted by AikiMDX
Lots o pics of the XC90:
linky
I have been reading opinions on the engine choices that are all over the map. The opinions range from the T5 matching power to the MDX (doubt that) to the T6 being the only engine people should consider for decent acceleration. You can find discussions on the engines at volvospy.com in their forums or at Edmunds. Can you tell that my wife has asked me to look into it as a possible car for her?
For those interested in the RES, it is a DIO for the XC90.
Also, according to Volvo's web site, the third row is covered in real leather.
The second row can be moved forward and locked into place creating additional leg room for the third row.
The minidisc player in some of the pics that have been floating around will supposedly not be available in the US.
I have read that maintenance on Volvo's tends to run similar to MB or BMW without the free maintenance they provide. Anyone with knowledge in that area?
I have owned several Volvos, most recently a 1992 740 and a 1999 S70. The 740 was grossly underpowered, but that was OK for me, as I am not a cowboy behind the wheel, by any stretch of the imagination. My wife, on the other hand, bought the S70, and found all models except the AWD to be underpowered. The AWD moved quite nicely, even for her (basically the same as the S70 T5 ). It would seem that Volvo's track is to only provide decent power with the upper models, as we found the same situation with the S80's.
As far as Volvo service and reliability, I would say that my experience has always been very good. I run all my cars "into the ground" but I am very careful to have all service done on time.
If the XC90 had been around last year, I would have to say that it would have given the MDX a real run for it's money in my decision process. |
|
|
| mdxxxx |
quote:
Originally posted by AikiMDX
Lots of high-res pics of XC90 plus link to brochure etc.
linky
AikiMDX,
I'm getting a partial page. The to of the page displays the following...
HTTP Error 404
404 Not Found
The Web server cannot find the file or script you asked for. Please check the URL to ensure that the path is correct.
Please contact the server's administrator if this problem persists. |
|
|
| AikiMDX |
quote:
Originally posted by mdxxxx
AikiMDX,
I'm getting a partial page. The to of the page displays the following...
HTTP Error 404
404 Not Found
The Web server cannot find the file or script you asked for. Please check the URL to ensure that the path is correct.
Please contact the server's administrator if this problem persists.
I just tried it again and it worked just fine. Very strange indeed.
You can try this link (almost the same) and see if it works for you:
linky |
|
|
| AikiMDX |
quote:
Originally posted by Phlyper
has anyone driven the different engine options for the XC90? The T6 seems to compare favorably to the X on paper, but how does the 2.5T do? I know it will fall behind the X but can it handle the "typical" SUV workload adequetly or is it just too small to carry this vehicle?
Forum discussion on volvospy.com on the engine choices:
linky |
|
|
| mdxxxx |
quote:
Originally posted by AikiMDX
I just tried it again and it worked just fine. Very strange indeed.
You can try this link (almost the same) and see if it works for you:
linky
It works after an option is selected at the bottom of the window. The initial display still shows the 404 error. Thanks. |
|
|
| AikiMDX |
quote:
Originally posted by mdxxxx
It works after an option is selected at the bottom of the window. The initial display still shows the 404 error. Thanks.
Glad you were able to get it to work. Don't know why it doesn't work like it does on my system here.
More pics.
linky |
|
|
| amontgom |
I drove the 2.5T this weekend, and was extremely impressed with the smoothness and quietness of the engine. It felt much stronger than my V6 Accord. The driving position (especially for me, a petite woman) was fantastic, and the seats were extremely comfortable. After driving the 2.5T, I would not even consider a T6 -- it was that good.
Now, if only Volvo had the reliability of Acura, I might be in line for one myself now. I have never owned a Turbo engine, and I am concerned about reliability -- both of this engine (made by GM), and Volvo's overall reliability record. A little waiting time never hurt anyone....
Andi |
|
|
| renov8r |
I think this has come up before, but it STILL is quite annoying --
Basically EVERY comparison chart/tool/website out there screws up something. Whether it is how they list options/available equipment or how they misquote capacities (such as towing, passengers) or length of warranty they ALWAYS screw-up something.
I don't think this is "deliberate", as in "sinister plot to make our product look better" but it is SLOPPY and stupid.
Way back when I sold bicycles, the owner stressed how important it was to know your product and also to KNOW what you are not sure about in the competitors offerings because WHEN (not if) a customer catches you fudging they will discredit EVERYTHING else you say... |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by amontgom
I have never owned a Turbo engine, and I am concerned about reliability -- both of this engine (made by GM), and Volvo's overall reliability record
Uhhmm... the 2 engines that the XC90 uses are homegrown, i.e. Volvo developed them, not GM. Now, the 4-speed tranny in the T6 (which is the smallest 4-speed auto tranny in the world) is made by GM. The 5-speed in the 2.5T is made by a Japanese company, Aisin-Warner. |
|
|
| amontgom |
Now I'm confused. According to the Edmunds First Drive, the 2.5T, not the T6, is made by GM.
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/road...90/article.html
I would feel much better knowing that Volvo indeed made their own 2.5T. Does anyone have any other sources on this issue? |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by amontgom
Now I'm confused. According to the Edmunds First Drive, the 2.5T, not the T6, is made by GM.
Neither engine was made by GM. Only the 4-speed transmission. Edmunds is not reliable sometimes -- check out their first drive of the Murano -- they mentioned that the Murano has a 5-speed CVT when in fact, it has no perceptible gear ratios which is what CVt trannies are. :) |
|
|
| navybean |
| I drove the XC 90 today at the Cerritos dealership today. I drove a five cylinder. The turbo lag was some what evident. The interoir blows the MDX interior away! It is nice. But it is not as large inside as the MDX. The exterior is pretty nice though. The handling of the truck is much better than the MDX. Also, I really like the tailgate. Split tailgate. very good looks, nice interior, great drive and ride, but not as large as the MDX on the inside.:cool: |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
What is it? Midsize, four-door, five- or seven-passenger sport-utility wagon manufactured in Sweden; Volvo's answer to Lexus RX 300, Acura MDX, BMW X5.
Overall: Exceptional mix of sport and utility, but think twice before choosing the T6.
How big? Roughly the same exterior size as the Ford Explorer SUV with slightly less interior space; significantly bigger than the Lexus RX 300; smaller than Acura MDX outside, but XC 90 has more cargo room. XC 90 is 188.9 inches long, 74.7 inches wide, 70.2 inches tall on a 112.6-inch wheelbase, weighing 4,450 pounds (five-passenger model) or 4,610 (three-row, seven-passenger). Cargo space behind the third-row seat is listed as 11.1 cubic feet. Behind the second-row seat, it's 43.3 cubic feet (seven-passenger) or 41.6 cubic feet (five-passenger). Maximum cargo space behind front seats: 85.1 cubic feet (seven-passenger) or 84.9 cubic feet (five-passenger). Rated to tow 5,000 pounds, carry 1,320 to 1,470 pounds of people and cargo, depending on model.
Some excerpts from the report:
The XC 90 didn't deliver the motoring bliss the portfolio suggests, but it is a very nice machine that probably ought to be on your short list.
Interestingly, the five-passenger and seven-passenger versions of the XC 90 space the seats slightly differently, and it affects legroom. The five-passenger's second row seats have no less than 36.4 inches, a comfortable amount. But the seven-passenger's second row sits slightly farther forward, to a make room for the third row, and musters a minimum of 34.6 inches of legroom, according to Volvo's specification sheet.
That's getting tight. And it requires second-row passengers to angle their feet inward to avoid the front-seat hardware.
Legroom in the third row is just 30.1 inches, so consider it a spot for kids only.
Oddly, the XC 90's biggest drawback seems to be that it lacks the chemistry that's found in other Volvos. If you try out one after years driving other Volvos, the XC 90 might not click.
For example, a couple of friends who are longtime Volvo drivers tried the test cars and weren't impressed. One bought a Honda Pilot instead, and the other continues to drive the family's XC 70. That's not proof of anything, but it's a hint that some emotional connection is missing. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
... smaller than Acura MDX outside, but XC 90 has more cargo room. ... Cargo space behind the third-row seat is listed as 11.1 cubic feet. Behind the second-row seat, it's 43.3 cubic feet (seven-passenger) or 41.6 cubic feet (five-passenger). Maximum cargo space behind front seats: 85.1 cubic feet (seven-passenger) or 84.9 cubic feet (five-passenger).
Here's the link to the article, BTW:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos...-14-volvo_x.htm
Interestingly enough, the Volvo doesn't really have much edge over the MDX in cargo room, and arguably the MDX is more practical in this area (with one exception). Behind the first-row seats, the Volvo has slightly more: 85.1 or 84.9 cubic feet vs. the MDX's 82.
However, behind the second row seats, the MDX has significantly more cargo space: 49.5 cubic feet vs. the XC90's 43.3 or 41.6 cubic feet.
The MDX has a slight advantage behind the third row as well.
One nice thing about the XC90's cargo space is that you can fold down the front passenger seat to put in something long. |
|
|
| ernest-t |
I have been looking for a new vehicle for over 4 months. Had it narrowed down to the MDX until I heard about the XC90. I had a chance to drive both versions of the XC90 and the 03 MDX multiple times.
MY OPINION:
XC90:
Better interior: more comfortable seats with better lumbar support, more solid feel, nicer control layout. better access to 3rd row (second row slides forward, and can access from both sides), telescoping steering wheel makes it easy to find comfortable driving position. Leather 3rd row seats. Better sound system
Safety: Pretensioners on all seats (MDX only on front), side curtain air bags (MDX-none). Boron steel roof - resists collapse in roll over. Whiplash prevention system on front seats, roll stability control system, etc..
Driving: Excellent handling with car like feel. Both engines tend to hesitate at low speeds (turbo-lag?), but adequate power even with the 5 cylinder. 6 cylinder was very quiet. Poor gas mileage with 6 cylinder. 5 cylinder noisy when accelerating.
Reliability: Questionable reliability, and 1st model problems which will probably appear.
MDX:
Great exterior styling. About $3000 less than XC90
Interior: Better visibility out rear window. Front seats felt narrow and too firm. 2nd row seating reclines a few inches (not on XC90). More 2nd row room. Factory installed DVD available (not on XC90). Probably better NAV system? Too many steps on shifter.
Driving: Excellent handling, smooth ride, slightly more roll in corners than XC90. Quicker acceleration, more power, quieter engine. No worry about Turbo related problems. Excellent gas mileage. Brakes were touchy at low speeds.
Reliability: Excellent for earlier versions. Most bugs should be worked out.
Conclusion: XC90 has better interior, more safety features, some extras. MDX better engine transmission combination makes for better overall performance, and reliability.
In the end I chose the XC90 primarily for the increased safety features (have 2 small kids), but I honestly don't think you could go wrong with either vehicle. If you are still undecided check out both with an open mind. |
|
|
| MDXtrous |
quote:
Originally posted by ernest-t
Questionable reliability, and 1st model problems which will probably appear.
It's arguable that reliability presents safety issues. I knew too well when my Jeep Grand Cherokee died on the highway twice. It may have been the safest car for it's year (93), but once the engine died on the fast lane, it became the most dangerous car I could have been in, that's why I will never buy American/reliability type problem cars... |
|
|
| mystic |
Reliability.....that weighs heavily on me.
I've known several people that have owned late-model Volvo's that ended up hating them because of maintenance problems.
Its the same reason that I will likely never buy a BMW. |
|
|
| cardingtr |
I know, I know, Our MDX is no V8 but I love how it sounds on open throttle. For everybody that drove the XC90, how does it compare?
Sometimes when the engine is warm enough, I step on it just to hear the sounds! |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by ernest-t
Conclusion: XC90 has better interior, more safety features, some extras. MDX better engine transmission combination makes for better overall performance, and reliability.
In the end I chose the XC90 primarily for the increased safety features (have 2 small kids), but I honestly don't think you could go wrong with either vehicle. If you are still undecided check out both with an open mind.
Good luck, I hope things work out well for you. Regarding safety the XC90 looks great on paper - but it is unproven!!! There have been no tests. The MDX has a proven track record and has tested to be on of (if not THE!) the safest SUV on the planet.:cool: |
|
|
| mogur |
I guess luck plays a part too... I have a 1999 E46 328I BMW with 61,000 miles on it. It has been flawless and only been to the dealership for routine maintenance. It has been the most reliable car I have ever owned. On the other hand, our 2001 MDX has been to the dealership 9 times for non-routine repairs and has 16,000 miles on it. I'd kill to have it be as reliable as our BMW...
quote:
Originally posted by mystic
Reliability.....that weighs heavily on me.
I've known several people that have owned late-model Volvo's that ended up hating them because of maintenance problems.
Its the same reason that I will likely never buy a BMW.
|
|
|
| Desant |
I test drove a T6 today. When I saw it first it looked great. Interior was nice, but I liked MDX interior better. The SUV feels heavier than MDX, acceleration is less refined than MDX, there was torque steer when you accelerate. Breaking in snow was much worse than MDX and inside noise from that T6 engine was reminding me of a Boeing 737-800, not horrible, but still loud! :) On the corners, it had a body lean that MDX doesn't have.
All in all, it is a great vehicle, but it doesn't even come close to MDX IMHO. :) |
|
|
| wmquan |
A lot of folks have pointed out that the T6 suffers from overly light steering. The C&D comparo with the XC90 also noted "novocaine-injected steering."
I suppose that as long as the XC90 is competitive in performance, it works out fine for those "Volvo afficianodos" C&D mentioned. A lot of "the typical Volvo buyer" segment isn't interested in top-notch performance or top-luxury (or even big reliability). Just in top-notch safety features (at least on paper), good luxury, and decent performance. |
|
|
| Desant |
I agree. In terms of steering, it was very light on the freeway - you hit a little bump and there it goes off the center - very sensitive. And it was a little bit too tight on the streets in terms of taking corners.
Another thing was that if you take a corner too fast, the front wheels would start spinning. Little thing, but my MDX never does that! :)
Touareg is next on my list! :) |
|
|
| spain |
| After much tire kicking, my decision was between the MDX and the XC90. I test drove the Volvo and was very impressed. The salesman told me that I was #25 on the list. Customers cannot order the colors/options/engine that they desire. When the dealership gets a new XC90 in stock, they call the first person on the list and ask that person if they want it. If they dont they go to the 2nd person on the list. I asked the salesman what if they never get in the car with the features that I wanted? He said I could get my $1000 deposit back. I dont think that is a good way to do business. Give the customer what he wants. I told the salesman that I would not get on a list, and if I couldnt get the car I wanted, then we couldnt do business. He didnt seem to care, so I left and put a deposit down on an Mdx.. |
|
|
| sstclairs |
| I went through an intense period of looking at both. MDX was a no-brainer for me - interior layout (spaciousness, visual lines of sight) along with value differential ($5,000 difference for similarly equipped vehicles). XC90 safety is proven in rollover and other tests, and I suspect would beat the MDX head-to-head, but the MDX is a safe vehicle and hopefully the safety difference will never be a factor. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by spain
When the dealership gets a new XC90 in stock, they call the first person on the list and ask that person if they want it. If they dont they go to the 2nd person on the list.
Unfortunately, it's not too far off from how some Acura dealerships were treating MDX customers not too long ago. It's disappointing to hear that a "luxury" dealer like Volvo isn't trying to do better.
Some Acura dealerships wouldn't even let you test drive the MDX (no loaner) and expected you to buy it sight unseen/undriven. And let's not get started into how some dealerships would sell the vehicle out from under you. Or tacking on overpriced options on top of MSRP+ pricing.
The good news is, some dealerships are ethical (and I'd imagine some Volvo dealerships are too), and that the white-hot demand for the MDX has cooled and the dealers are more customer-friendly. It's just too bad they can't do it when the vehicle is hot-selling! |
|
|
| Mike_Platini |
I saw very good Volvo dealers in Montreal, Canada. They are nice and treat customers well, as well as my Acura dealer.
After test driving the XC90, we decided to take the MDX. We got it last friday and until now, we are very happy with this baby. It is so smooth, quite and "powerful". It is a real no-brainer :) |
|
|
| zspen |
I've been shopping these two vehicles since August. Put down a deposit on the XC90 in September after reading the initial reviews and was told I would have the car by Thanksgiving. I was not impressed by the "hard sell" tactics (premium over MSRP, forced options, etc.) of the local Acura dealers when we looked at the MDX.
The XC90 has been delayed several times and the latest ETA is now early March. Started checking with the local Acura dealers this weekend and they all had inventory and were willing to sell at MSRP. The same dealer that gave us the hard sell in September was now very good to deal with (funny how that works). Now there's a 2003 Touring Silver/Quartz in our garage and Volvo is sending back our refundable deposit. As much as I liked the XC90 I've become very uncomfortable with the production delays and confusion at the dealership. We're happy with the MDX and this experience has probably soured us on Volvos for life. |
|
|
| spain |
quote:
Originally posted by zspen
I've been shopping these two vehicles since August. Put down a deposit on the XC90 in September after reading the initial reviews and was told I would have the car by Thanksgiving. I was not impressed by the "hard sell" tactics (premium over MSRP, forced options, etc.) of the local Acura dealers when we looked at the MDX.
The XC90 has been delayed several times and the latest ETA is now early March. Started checking with the local Acura dealers this weekend and they all had inventory and were willing to sell at MSRP. The same dealer that gave us the hard sell in September was now very good to deal with (funny how that works). Now there's a 2003 Touring Silver/Quartz in our garage and Volvo is sending back our refundable deposit. As much as I liked the XC90 I've become very uncomfortable with the production delays and confusion at the dealership. We're happy with the MDX and this experience has probably soured us on Volvos for life.
When you put your deposit down, did the dealer allow you to order the model/color/options that you wanted? Or did he just put you on a list? I am just curious to whether all the Volvo dealers are like the one here in Franklin, TN... |
|
|
| zspen |
| We were on the list to get one of the first 39 vehicles. The dealer took our preferences (color, engine, options, etc.) but made no guarantee we would get what we want. We gave them this information on three separate occasions but they kept "misplacing" the updated information. (Two of the salesmen we worked with are no longer working there - no explanation from their replacement). They had several vehicles on their list that would have worked for us but the delivery dates just kept slipping. The dealer was willing to order exactly what we wanted but it required a firm deposit and they couldn't provide a guaranteed delivery date (just sometime after April). |
|
|
| spain |
| I was very dissatisfied with the entire Volvo experience. Although, the salesman wasnt hard sell, he didnt really want our business that badly. He said that Volvo would not allow customers to order the options/colors/engine that they desired. You just paid your $1000 deposit, got on the list, and eventuallly when they got to your number, then hopefully the right car comes in. That is a piss poor way to do business in my opinion. The salesman blamed it on Volvo, which made me even more convinced that I dont want a Volvo. My wife is certainly not the type person who would take just any old vehicle that came in and neither am I. If you cant get exactly what you want, then why should you buy an AC90? Throw in the heftier price tag when similarly equipped and the MDX was a no brainer for me. I am sure that somebody has had a good experience with Volvo, I just dont know any... |
|
|
| Arzoo |
Before we decided on the MDX we put a small deposit ($50) on an XC90 to get on 'The List' at our local dealer. We were told that Volvo was initially just building and shipping, no custom orders. Eventually we would have been able to order exactly what we wanted, but not until 1st or 2nd quarter 2003.
Then we test drove the XC90 and MDX, and promptly asked for our XC90 deposit back! |
|
|
| damormino |
| I looked at the XC90 today. The dealer has two demos - a 2.5FWD and a T6 AWD. I was offered a test drive in both, but passed, since I has the kids with me. Still, I spent about 10 minutes in each vehicle - going over the interior features and owner manual. It's a very nice vehicle and has some neat features that the MDX doesn't have. (I am pretty familar with the MDX having owned both a 2001 Touring/Navi and 2003 Touring/Navi/RES.) My first impression was about the same as the first time I sat in a Mercedes ML430. It looks really nice until you look closely. The XC90 is nowhere as refined as the MDX. I was very disappointed. Levers were difficult to maneuver and latches did not engage easily - and they did so with a "clank" instead of a dull thud. One of the outside passenger levers had broken and there was something loose in the door. The Taupe leather interior is downright ugly. The Graphite in the other demo was much better. Take a look at the wood grain they used on the console. It is the same as the wood Oldsmobuick puts on the outside of their station wagons. Speaking of station wagons, my wife though the XC90 was very "stationwagon-ish" - both inside and out. To put this in perspective, consider the following. We own an MDX and love it. It's are favorite car on the road (for our needs). I need to b | | | |
