XC90 compare petrol and diesel - UK

I live in the UK and am lucky enough to be considering buying the Volvo XC90
diesel or petrol models.

Was in the dealership today and was impressed by the quality of build and
interior, we have arranged to test drive the car on Friday. Most
importantly the space inside is massive - needed for the family and dog.

The car we will drive on Friday is a D5 diesel, there is no T6 petrol
demonstrator (although might be a possibility of a short drive in a car they
are currently holding in stock).

Main concern is the apparent sluggishness (on paper) of the diesel and
reviews which suggest its over-taking power is sadly lacking. This pushes
me more towards T6 model, which I will have little opportunity to test and
manages an average 15 mpg? I know a 2 tonne vehicle is not going to be
'fast', but I would value good in-gear acceleration to overtake traffic on
busy roads.

The total additional cost to me of the T6 over the D5 is about about another
£100 per month - worth it?

Would welcome opinions and experiences of either model from owners /
drivers.

Many thanks

Jim

 

Ah if only the D5 was available over here, unfortunatly I have no idea about
your situation, just made me think how nice it would be to have a 200 or 700
series with a D5 in it.

 

Or a new V70, fully loaded ;-).

In the XC90, I think all the engines are bogged down pretty good. Except for
the T6, but I have heard the turbo's are a little slow to spool, and only a
4 speed gearbox.

I wouldn't even want to see the naturally aspirated 6 in that thing, it was
meant to haul the 960's... and it provides quite ample power, but coupled
with more weigh they can't be too quick. The D5 diesel should provide nice
torque to get the XC90 going tho.

 

Because there's more to the internet than hits alone, YourDaddy
wrote:

Maybe I've been living in the overcrowded, over legislated south too
long, but the number of overtaking opportunities on the roads I travel
on is almost nil. I can think of one in the last few weeks (so rare
that it's worth remembering); predictably I only caught up with the
next crocodile of traffic, and the vehicle I'd just overtaken caught
me up. Before I turned off that road I had gained 10 yards, and an
immeasurably small amount of time.

Realistically, on the roads I drive on, in and around Berkshire, the
issue of overtaking ability is almost irrelevant.


--

Stewart Hargrave

I run on beans - laser beans


For email, replace 'SpamOnlyToHere' with my name

 

The D5 is the better engine IMHO with the geartronic trans. Yes it does have
its work cut out to haul the thing about but its not shy to rev and torque
is good. If you do find it lacking- I would seriously suggest having it
chipped anyway. This boosts torque low down and power high up- tuning-box
suggest at least 180bhp after chipping and also stops the transmission
hunting up and down the gears at 40-50mph.

Best thing is to test drive it in town and on open road and make your own
decision.

Tim..

 

Hi, Jim - - -

During a recent month in the UK, I suffered the typical American's shock
at the price of petrol. We're accustomed to paying a bit more per
gallon than what you pay per liter, so of course "Joe Redneck" loves to
use just as much of that cheap fuel as ever he can - but that's another
story.

Is that 100 pounds "total additional cost to me" all anticipated fuel
expense? It certainly could be if you drive very much. Part of my own
thinking is the positive value in using less of an irreplacable
resource, but that's me. As another post commented, when the politics
of fuel are ever resolved, diesels will again be available here in
quantity and there are lots of us who will look at them again in their
current state of development.

bob noble
Reno, NV, USA

 

That is additional monthly repayment, additional fuel would be extra, but we
do only a few miles (8000 per year). You are right about fuel costs here,
the vast majority of fuel cost is taxation in the UK (80%), ours are by no
means the highest prices in Europe, in fact pre-tax (!) UK fuel is the
cheapest in Europe.

Certainly some current diesels offer good fuel economy AND reasonable
performance, our current car, an Audi A4 diesel is just such a vehicle which
return 50 mpg (UK) and still does 0-60 in 10 secs. I hadn't realised these
cars were not available in the US, I can't imagine why not - usually
everything seems available sooner and cheaper in the US market.

My concern here is that 163 bhp is not much to haul along a 2 tonne XC90 and
on our narrow roads overtaking ability could certainly be considered a
safety feature.

Test drive this afternoon, I will post how it goes and our conclusions!
Thanks for all the comments

Regards

Jim

 

However the ability to accelerate into traffic on an Interstate Highway
(Motorway) is very relevant. Nothing is more frustrating than trying to
pull onto a super highway with a diesel. What is more frustrating is
being caught behind one that is pulling out in front of you.

Here in Pennsylvania, we frequently have to pass horse drawn buggies
driven by our Amish brethern. When traffic is heavy, it helps to be
able to speed up quickly so you aren't stuck behind a horse. The AWD
helps when the roadapples (horse poo) cause slippery conditions.

 

Most models appear in Europe a year before the cross the pond.

They usually don't import Volvos to the USA models until the reliability
is established, usually the second production year. The XC90 was created
for the USA market where SUVs are king. They only bring models to the
USA that have decent acceleration. People won't spend much money on
cars that are passed by Subarus. The 300 series was never brought to
the USA because of polution problems. The 400 series just made it over
a couple years ago. It was primarily designed for the small car market
in Europe. After the 70's, small cars fell out of favor here. In fact
the XC90 is the ultimate expression of America's passion for SUVs and
monster cars. I would never have one. I have an XC70 which gets good
gas mileage and easily fit on European roads when I bought it in the UK
in 2001. It has lots of room and you don't need a ladder to get into
it. It does well in deep snow and has excellent acceleration,
especially on wet roads when other cars are spinning tires. The only
justifiable use for the XC90 would be off road driving. There you would
probably be better served by a Land Rover Discovery.

 

Funny, I drive my friend's diesel (82 Peugeot 505 S, about 70hp) and have
no trouble accelerating onto the highway. It's not lightning fast, but
once it's at speed it's got a surprising amount of power. It feels about
as fast as a non-turbo 240. We took it up into the mountains last weekend
and were quite able to give some large overpowered pickups a run for their
money. Despite all that flogging it returned about 32mpg.

- alex

'85 244 Turbo

 

The XC90 is offered with the five and six cylinder gasoline engines here.
Are there more gasoline choices in Europe? Whether or not the D5 is up to
the acceleration demands of the USA I cannot say, but surely the D5 will
not meet emissions standards with our diesel fuel the way it is.

I have yet to see/read about an SUV that will out accelerate a WRX (which
seems to be the most common Subie around here).

We never got the 300 or 400 series Volvos. We did get the 40 series, but
that's an entirely different car.

Yeah, that's what Pontiac said when the Fiero flopped. I think Americans
have fallen out of favor with small, crappy cars. Take a look at the
Miata, Civic, or the Z3. They're all very popular, better built than an
American car, and they're all quite small.

- alex

'85 244 Turbo

 

I have a Golf TDI, and I can be past the legal speed limit quite easily by
the time the on-ramps end. My dad was in Germany recently, and drove an Opel
diesel sedan, he said it got onto the autobahn incredibly easy (more
powerful then my Golf), and was doing over 200kph at one point.

Modern diesels aren't slow as hell, its the old ones that are slow. I bet
you wouldn't even know if a modern diesel was in front of you, unless his
engine was cold and it was a winters day, or he had to really punch it hard
(they still blow slight amounts of fumes at full throttle)... My TDI is
still slow(ish) to pass tho, compared to a gasoline powered car. My families
960 wagon would leave it in the dust in any situation.

 

Still, the Civic, Corolla, Golf, Jetta, Sentra, etc. are significantly
larger than the 1980s versions. The new Mini Cooper and New Beetle are
significantly larger than the originals of the 1960s/1970s. Even the
Scion xA isn't that small compared to some cars of the 1980s. The Focus
and Neon are significantly larger than the 1980s Escort and Omni.

 

But the S40/V40 replaced the 400 series. Here is the story:

Volvo BV plant came into Volvo ownership when the company acquired a 75%
stake in DAF's car division. Volvo had started negotiations with DAF as
early as 1969, and gained its controlling interest after a series of
financial moves. In 1976, DAF's four-cylinder Variomatic-transmission 66
model became a Volvo, heralding the introduction of the rather mundane
340 series. By 1981, the Dutch government had invested sufficient
capital in the company to reduce Volvo's stake to a 30% share.

The Volvo 480ES, introduced in 1986, was a front-drive hatchback which
was conceptually rather similar to the P1800 ES. The 480 used a 1.7
Renault engine, and was built in the Netherlands at the Volvo BV plant.

In 1988 Volvo introduced the Volvo 440 - an important new model in the
intermediate class and developed by Volvo Car B.V. in Holland. Its
roadholding and safety in particular were acclaimed by the press, as was
the generous amount of space inside the car.

In 1995 Volvo unveiled a completely new vehicle family. The compact
Volvo S40/V40 - the first cars to emerge from the joint venture with
Mitsubishi - were presented during the year. The Volvo S40, a four-door
sedan, was shown for the first time at the Frankfurt Show in September,
while the Volvo V40, a versatile and practical five-door tourer, was put
on display in Bologna towards the end of the year. The Mitsubishi
Carisma had already been unveiled earlier in the year. Volvo and
Mitsubishi were now building completely different car models at the Born
Plant, using the same production equipment. With softer, more sweeping
lines, the front-wheel drive Volvo S40/V40 represented a departure from
the styling of Volvo models in recent years. They were available with a
choice of three engines: two four-cylinder petrol engines of 2.0 and 1.8
litres and a turbocharged 1.9-litre diesel. These two cars set a
completely new standard of safety in the compact class - pioneering
side-impact airbags as standard equipment, for instance. In order to
release capacity at the Born Plant, production of the Volvo 480 was
discontinued. The biggest shock was a Volvo with curves. The S/V40 range
was the result of a joint venture with Mitsubishi. The styling of the
car was much more up to date than its predecessor, the 440. In fact, the
V40 wagon was named most beautiful estate car by an Italian magazine.

In 1996 production of the Volvo S40 and V40 got fully under way and the
car was soon very popular in Italy, Germany and the UK, among other
places. In November, the last car in the Volvo 400 Series was
manufactured, after production of almost 700,000 units since 1985.