Article Comments - 2009 Volvo XC60 First Drive

19 messages, Last post on Apr 23, 2009 at 11:17 AM

You are in the Volvo XC90 / XC60 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? Volvo XC60, SUV

2009 Volvo XC60 First Drive - First Impressions: A clear design statement and a very tempting package at a price that challenges the premium crossovers from Germany and Japan head on. 2009 Volvo XC60 First Drive

Outline

Messages Page 2 of 2: 1; 2; Prev; Next; Last

#10 of 19 Nice Looking by slance66 Feb 02, 2009 (11:45 am)
Looks good in pictures. Volvo has a weight problem though. The new style 2008+ XC70 has the same problem, while smaller than it's predecessor, its a few hundred pounds heavier. Did Volvo miss the recent sruge in gas prices (which will be back)? This car should be a little smaller and lighter, and should offer the 3.2 sans Turbo. If that engine can move the XC90, it can move the XC60. The styling of the new models has been great, I just wonder why all Volvo's are now heavy gas hogs. Replies to this message: volvomax (Feb 24, 2009 5:51 pm)
#11 of 19 Re: Nice Looking [slance66] by volvomax Feb 24, 2009 (5:51 pm)
Replying to: slance66 (Feb 02, 2009 11:45 am) Actually, the 08 XC70 is 5 inches LONGER than it's predecessor. It's also structurally stronger than it's predecessor. You don't gain that without some weight gain. the XC60 will be available w/ the 3.2 engine. However, the T6 gets virtually the same gas mileage AND offers plenty of extra hp.
#12 of 19 Who's driven one ??? by 10scoachrick Mar 12, 2009 (2:35 pm)
Does anyone have an update? I'm going to the Austin 'lov' tour on Monday. Dealer has a few in stock...says they've already sold 11. I'm hoping it has enough capacity to justify its 'SUV' status...I like the room of our XC70 but DW wants to sit higher(again--former RX driver). Have to trade in our smug no-SUV ranking, I suppose. At a glance, the 60 relates to our C70 in that the area behind the front seats is about as small as it could be and still be called a back seat/cargo area. I like the sporty look and size of the interior as long as I can get my bike in the back without too much hassle. The only other regular occupant of the rear area is our Scottie...plenty of room for her. As I mentioned in the 90 thread, looks like incentives include 'lifetime' Sirius and 3 years maintenance covered...it'll be interesting to see if there are any financing or loyalty incentives so I can justify the purchase on Monday!!!
#13 of 19 Where is the article? by loach Mar 29, 2009 (1:32 pm)
The link just takes me to a page where the Road Test review should be - but there's just a picture and no review. What am I missing? Replies to this message: tidester (Mar 29, 2009 5:55 pm)
#14 of 19 Re: Where is the article? [loach] by tidester HOST Mar 29, 2009 (5:55 pm)
Replying to: loach (Mar 29, 2009 1:32 pm) Good question! I'll report it and see whether we can get it back! tidester, host SUVs and Smart Shopper
#15 of 19 T6 vs. 3.2 by wyang76 Apr 20, 2009 (2:14 pm)
Can anyone tell me which is the better engine between the T6 and 3.2? I know the 3.2 engine is coming out but what are the biggest advantages or disadvantages between these 2? thanks. Replies to this message: qbrozen (Apr 20, 2009 2:46 pm) wyang76 (Apr 21, 2009 8:10 am) qbrozen (Apr 21, 2009 10:44 am) and 1 more...
#16 of 19 Re: T6 vs. 3.2 [wyang76] by qbrozen Apr 20, 2009 (2:46 pm)
Replying to: wyang76 (Apr 20, 2009 2:14 pm) The turbo will have worse gas mileage in exchange for more power. Replies to this message: wyang76 (Apr 21, 2009 8:10 am) qbrozen (Apr 21, 2009 10:44 am) wyang76 (Apr 23, 2009 11:17 am)
#17 of 19 Re: T6 vs. 3.2 [qbrozen] by wyang76 Apr 21, 2009 (8:10 am)
Replying to: qbrozen (Apr 20, 2009 2:46 pm) Only gas mileage and power difference. I'm looking for long term reliability. Which is the better engine for that? How much better mileage with the 3.2? Thanks. Replies to this message: qbrozen (Apr 21, 2009 10:44 am) wyang76 (Apr 23, 2009 11:17 am)
#18 of 19 Re: T6 vs. 3.2 [wyang76] by qbrozen Apr 21, 2009 (10:44 am)
Replying to: wyang76 (Apr 21, 2009 8:10 am) Well, not as much as one would think. If you look at the XC70 for comparison, the 3.2 is rated 18/23, while the T6 is rated 18/22. The T6 offers nearly 50 more hp and 60 more ft-lbs torque. Pretty significant power jump for a minor mileage penalty. Of course, the T6 will cost more. Base price difference on the XC70 is about $2250 to get the T6 over the 3.2. Long-term reliability is anyone's guess. But, certainly, from a straightforward logic standpoint, the T6 will have more parts to break and its components, not to mention the transmission, differentials, etc, will be more stressed thanks to the greater power. That's not to say, however, both combinations wouldn't go over 200k miles, for instance, it is just something I'm pointing out. Replies to this message: wyang76 (Apr 23, 2009 11:17 am)
#19 of 19 Re: T6 vs. 3.2 [qbrozen] by wyang76 Apr 23, 2009 (11:17 am)
Replying to: qbrozen (Apr 21, 2009 10:44 am) Thanks for the input everyone.