Karl's Daily Log Book - READ ONLY

2391 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2005 at 6:50 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Coupe, Sedan, SUV

Karl Brauer is the Editor in Chief of Edmunds.com, which means he finds himself in a different vehicle almost every day of the week. If you want a daily road test review regarding the latest cars and trucks to hit the market, along with commentary on everything from auto industry happenings to L.A. drivers to his latest close encounter with Johnny Law, this is the place to be.

Outline

Messages Page 2 of 240: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; ...; 240; Prev; Next; Last

#9 of 2391 March 4 by editor_karl Mar 03, 2005 (10:20 pm)
Every time I see or drive a Volvo XC90 I'm reminded of how much more the average American buyer is focusing on safety. This car is not particularly attractive, and between its Volvo badge and chunky station wagon looks it's hardly "cooler" than any minivan. Yet this is one of Volvo's most successful models, and much of it has to do with the car's (well-deserved) reputation as a street legal bank vault for families. My ongoing problem with the XC90 was always the weak drivetrain options. Either you bought the more powerful T6 model and you had to put up with an outdated four-speed automatic. Or you went with the smaller 2.5T engine to get a modern five-speed automatic, but the car was left wheezing with only 208 horsepower (remember, that double-strength chassis is HEAVY; this car weighs over 4,400 lbs!). But the 2005 version I drove today offers a 315 horsepower V8 and a SIX-SPEED automatic. Now that's more like it! At $46,000 it ain't cheap, but the XC90 finally brings performance, luxury and benchmark-setting safety together in one package (the styling still won't set your heart aflutter). I can say this without hesitation: If divine enlightenment suddenly told me that my wife and kids were going to be in an accident tomorrow, and the only element I could control was the light duty vehicle they would be in when it happened, I would choose this vehicle. Replies to this message: andys120 (Mar 04, 2005 8:11 am) editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 2:28 pm) calhon (Mar 04, 2005 3:41 pm) and 4 more... lev_berkovich (Mar 04, 2005 10:45 pm) highender (Mar 05, 2005 8:07 pm)
#10 of 2391 Re: March 2 [editor_karl] by andys120 Mar 04, 2005 (8:06 am)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 02, 2005 11:03 am) With the larger, 20-inch wheels and sporty front seats it can almost pass for a sport sedan...but it's just too BIG to get away with it. Is it really that big or do the big wheels and small windows make it look bigger than it is? I parked next to one in my E39 Bimmer (528iA) and noted that the 300 appeared only fractionally longer taller and wider. The E39 is classified as a "compact sedan".
#11 of 2391 Re: March 4 [editor_karl] by andys120 Mar 04, 2005 (8:11 am)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 03, 2005 10:20 pm) If divine enlightenment suddenly told me that my wife and kids were going to be in an accident tomorrow, and the only element I could control was the light duty vehicle they would be in when it happened, I would choose this vehicle Not me, I'd opt for the lower V70 or XC70 which have lower CGs ergo less chance of flipping. I'd have to disagreeagree w your assesment of it's looks though. It's really quite attractive for a Volvo and it's selling like hotcakes for that reason IMO. Replies to this message: editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 2:28 pm) calhon (Mar 04, 2005 3:41 pm) editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 4:27 pm) and 3 more...
#12 of 2391 Re: March 4 [andys120] by editor_karl Mar 04, 2005 (2:28 pm)
Replying to: andys120 (Mar 04, 2005 8:11 am) Don't forget that a lower CG also means a lower hip point for the passengers, meaning if the other vehicle in the accident has a high CG (increasingly common in today's world) an impact between them will likely involve vital organs for the lower vehicle (like an XC70). Besides, rollover accidents are still relativley rare, and the most dangerous elements, if they do happen, are when: A. The occupants aren't wearing seat belts or B. The vehicle collapses in on itself and/or an occupant's head strikes an interior surface like the roof or roof pillar The XC90 has some of the most advanced anti-rollover technology available, and it has a structure that's very unlikely to collapse in on itself (the roof is made of Boron steel). And it has three rows of side curtain airbags. And my family is always properly belted in. I'll stick with the XC90, higher CG and all. Replies to this message: calhon (Mar 04, 2005 3:41 pm) editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 4:27 pm) calhon (Mar 04, 2005 5:36 pm) etoileb (Mar 18, 2005 4:14 am) and 1 more...
#13 of 2391 Re: March 4 [editor_karl] by calhon Mar 04, 2005 (3:41 pm)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 2:28 pm) Karl, single-vehicle rollover crashes accounted for 47 percent of occupant deaths in SUVs in 2003 compared with 36 percent of deaths in pickups and 19 percent of deaths in cars. Rollovers are rare but their impact is tremendous: Crashes in which a vehicle rolled over accounted for 33 percent of passenger vehicle occupant deaths in 2003 (55 percent of single-vehicle occupant crash deaths and 12 percent of multiple-vehicle occupant crash deaths). Stats from http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/occupants.htm#sec4 Replies to this message: editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 4:27 pm) calhon (Mar 04, 2005 5:36 pm) etoileb (Mar 18, 2005 4:14 am) lev_berkovich (Mar 18, 2005 2:51 pm)
#14 of 2391 Re: March 4 [calhon] by editor_karl Mar 04, 2005 (4:27 pm)
Replying to: calhon (Mar 04, 2005 3:41 pm) How many of those rollover fatalities involved the Volvo XC90? If your answer is "I don't know" then I'd follow up by saying, again, that the XC90 has extremely advanced anti-rollover technology, and even more advanced safety technology to protect occupants in the (unlikely) event that it does rollover. Are rollovers bad? Yes. They are also rare (as you admit) and unless someone can point to the XC90 having a preponderance for rolling over (I would bet that any research on the subject would prove the opposite) then I'm going to stick with my position that the XC90 is EXTREMELY safe -- desptie being an SUV (to me it's really a tall wagon). Replies to this message: calhon (Mar 04, 2005 5:36 pm) etoileb (Mar 18, 2005 4:14 am) lev_berkovich (Mar 18, 2005 2:51 pm)
#15 of 2391 Re: March 4 [editor_karl] by calhon Mar 04, 2005 (5:36 pm)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 4:27 pm) I just wanted to correct any impression that rollovers were of low importance because they are rare. On the contrary, it's the very reason why the XC90's safety systems, of which I'm a big fan, are so significant. See, we are on the same side.
#16 of 2391 Re: March 4 [editor_karl] by lev_berkovich Mar 04, 2005 (10:45 pm)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 03, 2005 10:20 pm) I would have to disagree with you, Karl, on one point: - The XC90 is a looker. It is the most striking mid-size SUV on a market IMHO. Our Ruby Red draws a lot of attention everywhere we go. My wife, who drives the car, compares it with a fancy dog - she gets hits from male drivers every time she stops for a gas And 208HP seems to be more than adequate to us. It is an SUV, the family/cargo hauler, is it? I will buy a sport coupe, if I need an adrenaline pumper.
#17 of 2391 Re: March 4 [editor_karl] by highender Mar 05, 2005 (8:07 pm)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 03, 2005 10:20 pm) I think the Cayenne with the adjustable air suspension also has really good anti rollover technology...perhaps better than the Volvo due to its self-leveling suspension that can help the car balance itself in milliseconds. ...but Porsche is about performance...so they do not advertise the safety angle... the Volvo is good ... I drove the XC-90 at speed at a closed course... even made the wheels skid and drift. I drove both the tamer model and the twin turbo one....and liked them... however, I do not like the XC-90 rear end lights going up like the way they do, IMHO. LOOKs are subjective...SO if I were to design them, I would do something diff....the front end looks good...the interior is also good. It even has a radiator that breaks up ozone, a polluter. I would have no problem owning one...
#18 of 2391 March 7 by editor_karl Mar 07, 2005 (7:59 pm)
Aston-Martin, like Cadillac and Suzuki, is in the midst of a revival. But unlike Cadillac and Suzuki, Aston-Martin has the type of heritage that any modern car company would kill for. Victory at Le Mans, a longstanding (and recently revived) association with the world's most famous secrent agent, and a reputation for making British sports cars that are as sexy as anything to come from Modena or Zuffenhausen. The company hit some rough patches in recent times, including a discernible drop in quality and a reputation for being glorified Jaguars. But the 2002 Aston-Martin Vanquish signaled a paradigm shift for the British marque, and the all-new DB9 continues the momentum. I drove the DB9 today on some of the most entertaining roads in Southern California, and let me confirm for you now that the company's future is bright. The U.S. is its fastest-growing market, and the dealer count has more than doubled in the last five years. And the car? Well, the 2005 DB9 is perfectly balanced on the road and downright decadant inside (it makes Lexus wood look like cork board). The automatic tranny offers paddle shifter functionality and the type of rev-matching on downshifts that normally require a sequential manaual design with a clutch and pressure plate. But this unit has a torque converter, meaning no annoying head-toss when left in full Auto mode, despite the manual-tranny-like rapid response time when manually shifted. I'll have a First Drive story (with video) available soon, but here's a quick sneak peak: It's a damn fine automobile.