| donsev |
| I found it a little strange that for the first 5 - 6 hours that the "Mudfest" link was posted on the msn.com website home page it linked directly to a Volvo web site for the XC90. (Do you think that the web page administrator took the "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" from the autos.msn marketing guy a little too literally?) |
|
|
| sstclairs |
| It's quite clear Volvo is simply paying MSN for advertising. The XC90 has appeared in the MSN homepage regularly in the past month, with the XC90 picture used for every SUV-related topic. Even when the "topic" listed is something like "10 best SUVs", clicking on the topic and related threads takes you - you guessed it! - right to a Volvo XC90 page. |
|
|
| Casique |
| The volvo XC90 is not a bad vehicle if you want an expensive average to bellow average reliability SUV!:1: |
|
|
| Desant |
IMHO, XC 90 is a very nice SUV. It is well though through, well designed and has lots of safety features. It is not cheap, but it is not overly expensive either.
On the other side, it is first year of production and Volvo's AWD had design problems for a while - covered by several car magazines.
All in all, once bugs are found and fixed, in a year-two I think it will be the one of the closest competitors to MDX (along with RX330, new X5, new X7 and new Audi SUV). |
|
|
| cmdpm |
hello everyone,
i test drove an xc90 this past saturday and noticed the following:
1. the car (its based on the s80) is very handsome inside and out.
2. the fit and finish and materials used are exceptional.
3. it has a manumatic in addition to the automatic transmission, although with the twin turbo (t6) it is only a four speed, so its not as much fun.
4. it does not have a low gear like the pilot with its push button.
5. the acceleration of the t6 is adequate but not real lively.
6. the interior is surprisingly tight. not nearly as spacious as the pilot.
on paper it is without question the safest car with several safety features, some unique to the xc90.
would i buy it?...
yes. although the pilot is more spacious, accelerates better, is much less expensive and will have better reliability.
the bottom line... for families with 3 or more kids the pilot is the way to go.
p.s.- my recommended upgrades to the pilot, "the pilot s"
1. manumatic shifter
2. vehicle stability control
3. 18" wheels |
|
|
| AikiMDX |
Here is a link (posted over at Edmunds) for the Canadian Volvo site. Lots of pics and even some sales info:
linky |
|
|
| wmquan |
Here's where I wonder whether Roll Stability Control (RSC) is being somewhat overhyped by Volvo. Volvo didn't invent stability control (MB+Bosch co-invented it), but would like to lay claim to RSC.
The base concept in RSC is that it monitors an additional directional access to detect a rollover. Conventional stability control systems measure in one less axis.
But the question is, how many additional rollovers does RSC really prevent compared to conventional stability control? Everything else about RSC is simple stability control, including braking specific wheels, and cutting engine torque.
RSC claims that conventional systems will detect a vehicle veering to the left or right, but not if the vehicle is relatively straight but beginning to tilt. Two thoughts on this:
1) Will all conventional systems still not detect some degree of yaw in a tilt, and begin to activate?
2) How realistic is such a rollover condition? Rollovers usually occur after a vehicle begins skidding (after it begins to yaw), whereupon conventional stability control begins to activate. Or rollovers occur when something "trips" the vehicle. It's highly likely there'd still be some yaw and that activates stability control. Another type of rollover occurs when a vehicle is t-boned, but no stability control system will save the vehicle from rollover there.
I would think the largest benefit of RSC is that there is more tie-in with the computer system so that once the tilt begins to occur, there is much more consideration and action taken on how to eliminate the tilt than with a conventional system. This part, I think that RSC would deserve credit for as an innovative system. |
|
|
| MDXLuvr |
volvo has nothing else to offer. Their safety reputation was/is the focus of their marketing. However, All cars/suv's are much safer now then they were 15 years ago. so, I personally feel that volvo has lost ground in the last decade.
Safety is a combo of active and passive features. here is a link to my previous discussion about this issue.
as u can tell, i am not a big fan of volvos(sorry william) |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by MDXLuvr
volvo has nothing else to offer. There safety reputation was/is the focus of their marketing. However, All cars/suv's are much safer now then they were 15 years ago. so, I personally feel that volvo has lost ground in the last decade.
...
as u can tell, i am not a big fan of volvos(sorry william)
Ha, nothing to be sorry about. I'm not a big fan of Volvos either (have had some interesting debate with some Volvo fanatics over on Edmunds). Though I am considering a used V70 (good deals on certified used ones because the depreciation is bad; wouldn't buy one new). I agree with your point that all Volvo really has left is safety:
http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/show...99905#post99905
Volvos still have some safety innovations that other manufacturers don't have or have less of. E.g. seats+headrest combos that are designed to reduce whiplash. I think there have been some actual statistical studies to show that they actually do reduce the incidence of whiplash injury in rear-end collisions. Most manufacturers are still trying to improve the headrests, not even getting to the seat yet. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by cmdpm
on paper it is without question the safest car with several safety features, some unique to the xc90.
Lets hope the XC90's paper translates onto crash tests; the MDX has proven to have superior crash test results.
Until the XC90 proves itself it is still paper. |
|
|
| lak |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
But the question is, how many additional rollovers does RSC really prevent compared to conventional stability control?
1) Will all conventional systems still not detect some degree of yaw in a tilt, and begin to activate?
2) How realistic is such a rollover condition?
Here's an interesting test (very technical though):
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nr...001/Forken1.PDF
It tested ML320 and LX470 rollovers tendency with and without ESP. My thoughts:
1. ML320 is inherently much more stable than LX470 (?independent rear suspension vs live rear axle)
2. ESP does wonders for LX470. It looks totally out of control without ESP :-)
3. Check test manoevre "Fishhook #2" in the article, you still get TWL (two wheel lift) for both ML320 and LX470 even with ESP on; though they are described as "minor". I believe RSC is supposed to eliminate this - hopefully, they can put this to test later.
As for various rollover condition, you can check this out as it describes various testing manoevre to simluate rollover conditions:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nr...lover_short.pdf |
|
|
|
