By on June 2, 2009

As an Elvis fan, I have to say that the singer created an enormous body of completely unlistenable music. The Hollywood years are particularly execrable, generating as they did an entire canon of crap. In the same sense, Volvo. In recent history, the American-owned Swedish automaker has unleashed a range of vehicles that did little more than remind us how far the iconic brand has fallen. For example, Volvo’s minivan, which—oh wait. They didn’t make a minivan. Right. Volvo’s XC SUVs arrived late, with the wrong engines, with a rep for tank-like build quality and unimpeachable reliability that was only obvious by its absence. Ditto Volvo’s sedans. And now, Volvo’s ’68 Comeback Special: the XC60.

First, let’s get something into the open: I don’t like CUVs. I understand that an elevated driving position creates a sense of control and (perceived) safety. But if I’m high, I want to be mighty. Or, at the very least, driving something that’s mighty big inside. Every CUV I’ve driven was either a gas-sucking lard ass, a poorly packaged gas-sucking lard ass or a joyless hybrid.

The moment I laid eyes on the Volvo XC60, I felt my anti-car-on-stilts position softening. The crossover’s press shots make the model look goofy (you shouldn’t see the ones I didn’t publish). In the metal, the XC60 is as perfectly sized and proportioned as a Steinway piano. The Swede’s shape and stance—boasting better ground clearance than many trucks—generates a look that’s solid without being stolid; projecting macho ruggedness and dynamism.

Volvo gets credit for attaching a brand-faithful snout to a highly raked windshield without creating an acre of dashtop plastic or A pillars that could support Trump Tower. The XC60′s profile is appropriately outdoorsy, in a diminutive but not dainty sort of way. The XC60′s rear is also particularly well wrought. It’s got that Land Rover take stuff anywhere thing happening, and mellifluously melds melted tail lamps with a roof spoiler and shark fin.

Taken as a whole, I’ll take it.

Inside, rental car. I so didn’t want it to be so. XC60 buyers who share this desire will find it easy enough to generate the necessary suspension of disbelief to con themselves that they’re driving a premium product. The Volvo’s interior design is fastidious. The controls are ergonomically sound and appropriately Ikea-like. The jaunty little LCD screen popping up from the top of the XC60′s dash is as cute as Wall-E’s itty bitty face. Sure, there’s no surprise and delight, but c’mon, it’s a Volvo. The brand that schlepped a thousand minimalists.

Yeah, well, it’s a $40K Volvo. Swedish style, careful craftsmanship and totally flat-folding rear seats can’t mask the XC60′s low-rent materials’ quality. Equally dire: the switch-gear operates with all the satisfaction of a lowfat deep-fried peanut butter sandwich. Let’s hope the XC60′s haptically hideous plastics are Ford tough; I can’t think of any other reason to remind yourself you overpaid for a Volvo. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Volvo XC60′s interior is “Blue Hawaii” to the Audi Q5 cabin’s “Blue Moon of Kentucky.”

The XC60′s engine is a hit. The 281hp 3.0-liter in-line six sounds distinctly MOR, and there’s a touch of turbo-lag from the git-go. But once underway, there’s a hoon of torque underfoot: 295 lb·ft. @ 1,500-4,800 rpm. The XC60′s stable yard is never, ever shy of horses. Which is just as well for a four-plus-one seater that burns gas at 15/22 mpg.

In terms of actual hoonery, the XC60′s grip and composure will leave you wanting better seat bolstering. Once again, damn the man who invented all-season tires. Thanks to its overly stiff rubber, the XC60 is just that little bit too hard riding. It ruins any chance of an upscale vibe, serving an unwelcome reminder that the XC60 shares its underlying architecture with the ill-fated Land Rover LR2.

Do I have to mention safety? How about this: if you can find a Volvo XC60 without the $1695 Technology Package (Adaptive Cruise Control, Collision Warning with Auto-Brake, Distance Alert, Lane Departure Warning and Driver Alert Control), that’s the way to go. In other words, file all those gizmos under “more electronic shit that will go wrong” and “more evidence that Volvo’s brand managers don’t get it.”

For under $30K, Volvo would sell XC60s all day long. Even in the current economic climate. Even if Wo Fat buys the brand. Knocking on $40K, Volvo’s high-priced cute ute is almost as inadvisable as a Lincoln MKS. But not quite. ‘Cause the XC60 is a “real” Volvo—provided it goes the distance mechanically.

If not, well, the King of Rock and Roll ended his career in a blaze of self-parody, picking invisible bugs off his arms as he tried (and failed) to remember lyrics he’d been performing for twenty years. I’d hate to see Volvo go the same way. But I wouldn’t be surprised.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

50 Comments on “Review: 2009 Volvo XC60 T6...”


  • avatar
    romanjetfighter

    I think a comparo to the GLK is in order!! :)

  • avatar

    Beautiful car. I’ve only seen one in person and the taillights alone can keep your eyes busy for an hour.

    Too bad about the interior though. I would have liked to have seen that great matte layered wood that Volvo offers as an option instead of the aluminum trim. I’m usually not a big fan of wood trim, but that stuff looks great.

    Volvo needs to ditch the remote control navigation system though. I already have too many remotes in my life, and I don’t think that will work with a Harmony.

  • avatar
    hltguy

    Robert: I am also an Elvis fan, and agree he wasted many years recording crap, though I will say even in the worst of times (i.e. movies like Clambake and Spinout) there were a few gems mixed in, such as the three “bonus” songs off the “Spinout” soundtrack (not in the movie), the highlight being Elvis’s exquisite rendition of the Bob Dylan song “Tomorrow is a Long Time”, a great song and performance. Of course, the Colonel and RCA, in all their brilliance buried it on the back end of a sorry soundtrack. That song alone could have been a stellar release for Elvis in 1966 and fit the mood of the country well and what was going on in the music scene. I will be at Graceland again this August. Sorry for the diversion from the auto stuff. Will chat about Elvis with you anytime. (One last comment, you ever hear Elvis’s version of “You’ll Never Walk Alone” he performed at the Uniondale, New York show in July 1975, just him singing and playing the piano and the only time he sang it in concert, just a soaring performance.)

  • avatar
    Durask

    I just finished cross-shopping for a CUV, the finalists were XC60 and Q5.

    All I can say – if the Volvo interior is low-rent then I think one of us needs to see an eye doctor…

  • avatar
    Durask

    I just finished cross-shopping for a CUV, the finalists were XC60 and Q5.

    All I can say – if the Volvo interior is low-rent then I think one of us needs to see an eye doctor…

    I don’t want to come off as rude but I am truly dumbfounded by this statement. IMHO the XC60 interior is first-rate. No worse than Infiniti or Acura, that’s for sure.

  • avatar

    You see how that works? You judge the XC60′s cabin on how it looks. I judge it on look and feel.

    If you add those two together (and, believe it or not, smell), the Volvo XC60 isn’t even in the same league as the Audi Q5.

    More specifically, try the overhead switches that control the cabin lights. Yes, I’m OCD. But car designers should be, too.

  • avatar
    Akrontires

    I actually just bought an XC60 one month ago. I never would have had Volvo on my radar but I saw this one at the Detroit Auto show and just fell in love. My decision came down to an A4 Avant and the Volvo. I decided on the Volvo because I have both a baby and a bad back and you wouldn’t believe how much easier it is to get the kid in the seat that is even just a bit further off of the ground. Also the integrated child seats will be huge when he gets a bit bigger. (I’ve always been a sports car guy so never did I imagine that this would be the killer feature)

    Finally – I’ve had bad, bad luck with both VW and Audi products so I don’t want to go that way again.

    I think the car is fun to drive and looks just great even if I do concur about the rough ride.

  • avatar
    allegro con moto-car

    In other words, file all those gizmos under “more electronic shit that will go wrong”

    I keep thinking that adaptive cruise control is a gizmo that once use it, you can never go back to regular CC. This may be one gizmo worth taking a chance at MESTWGW, and I can do without the rest of the electronic shit.

    The problem is that more than likely, when ACC is offered, it probably is only packaged with all of that other electronic shit. And It may take many years before this luxury feature eventually migrates down to vehicles with a cloth interior. Doh!

    allegro

  • avatar
    Davekaybsc

    The XC60 is surprisingly good (and half decent to drive) for a Volvo. It’s much better than the shockingly poor GLK, and at least more up to date than the X3. It’s too expensive though, for a car with all the badge status of a Subaru or Saab. Even Acura has slightly more cachet, though Acura’s competition in this case is a pile of suck.

    Volvo should consider themselves very fortunate that Lexus has still not decided whether they want to enter this fight. If Lexus ever does make a model below the RX, XC60 sales will dry up and blow away.

    Ultimately, it’s just not good enough. It may steal a few sales from those too nervous to buy (the far superior) Q5 and upcoming X3 replacement, but not enough. This alone will not save Volvo from oblivion.

    Also, Volvo’s quality rep is an old leftover from the ’80s, just like Mercedes. Starting with the S80 in the late ’90s, Volvos became utterly unreliable trash, and have only recently improved. Volvo interiors may be cheap, but the maintenance costs are just as high as the Germans. This thing also guzzles gas like a Chevy Tahoe. There’s just no excuse for that when the Q5, X3, and RX can manage 20mpg.

  • avatar
    AdamYYZ

    I gotta agree with Robert on this one. The whole look/touch/smell thing is important as a whole. Some new cars have an overwhelming new car smell that is just way more toxic smelling than other new cars. That is definitely an indicator of some cheap ass materials and assembly methods. It’s a big bloody turnoff.

  • avatar
    Durask

    All plastics in the XC60 are soft-touch, and as I said, the quality of the interior is just as good as any Infinity or Acura. If you want to be OCD, you can easily nitpick any Lexus to bits. I will be happy to nitpick any Lexus of your choice. I just cross-shopped and I drove the RX (incredibly overrated vehicle) and the GX :)

    Speaking of Lexus, XC60 is a competitor to the RX – same interior space, same passenger capacity. I actually drove the RX and it is extremely claustrophobic compared to the XC60.

    Honestly, I think the XC60 is falling victim to the usual “perception is reality” curse. For example, look at the “gas hog” comment.

    XC60 is rated 15/22 regular
    Q5 is rated 18/23 premium gas
    Lexus RX is rated 17/22 premium
    Overall very comparable numbers, however XC60 is immediately labelled a “gas hog”.

  • avatar
    Durask

    I ended up not buying either the XC60 _or_ the Q5, but of those two, I would have bought the XC60 which overall is, imho, a better car.

  • avatar
    ajla

    @carguy622:
    You can get the matte wood in the XC60. And, I agree that it is an absolutely great looking feature. I wish Volvo would make it standard.
    -

    I know what RF is saying about the feel of an interior, but an XC60 with the two-tone seats and the matte wood accents would give a very stylish look.

    I think I would prefer the XC60′s cool interior look and crummy switchgear over the Q5′s world-class switchgear and funeral home look.

    But I’m much more vain than OCD.

  • avatar

    Durask

    I reckon they’re ALL gas hogs. And I agree: Lexus quality on their low-end vehicles is lamentable (although the NEW RX is miles better).

    I also prefer the XC60′s cabin to the Lexus RX. Faced with a choice between the two, I would buy a used Mercedes GL. Or the XC over the RX—if the price wasn’t so high, making the Volvo’s depreciation a far worse proposition than the Toyota’s. Speaking of which . . .

    You’re right: “perception” IS reality. That’s the way it is when it comes to car brands.

    People expect a Mercedes to project wealth and offer better engineering than the competition, even though they’ve gone downmarket and produced some really poor cars. They expect a Jaguar to have a serene yet composed ride, even though many of them don’t. They expect a Lexus not to break, even though . . . Anyway . . .

    Volvo customers expect a Volvo to be safe, handsome, affordable, reliable and frugal. in this case, yes, yes, no, not sure, no.

  • avatar

    Must say I also didn’t find the XC60′s interior low-rent. Not the epitome of luxury, either, but then this is a Volvo.

    The exterior, on the other hand, I find a bid oddly shaped. But it is distinctive, which can’t be said for most others, including the Q5 (which the ads claim is distinctive).

    No chance to drive one yet. I have read that the XC60 somehow handles better than the XC70, even though the latter has a lower center of gravity.

    Reliability–TrueDelta aims to have stats ASAP. All depends on how soon owners sign up and participate.

    Details here:

    http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php

  • avatar
    Akrontires

    For whatever it’s worth – I have been averaging 20.2 and I am no hypermiler…

  • avatar
    Durask

    Michael Karesh,

    Handling is very subjective. I thought the XC70 handles just as good. What turned me off the XC70 was the cramped rear seats – in a car of this size it was truly shocking.

  • avatar
    Schm

    I’ve played around in this Volvo’s interior, as well as the new and old Lexus Rx and the Audi Q5, as well as the GLK and ML. Sure, a few panels of the Volvo may not be up to Audi standards, but it’s a top notch effort, and damn those seats are comfy. If I were in this market (My mother, who has 60k on her Rx400h soon will be) I would have no qualms about buying either the Volvo, Audi or the Merc, although I probably wouldn’t buy another Lexus (But that’s just my opinion, and I wouldn’t have bought the Lexus in the first place).

  • avatar
    RogerB34

    “…unimpeachable reliability…”
    Impeached by CReports. The S60 is solid reliability, the rest much less so.

  • avatar
    paulie

    RF
    Pretty good review, except for the MKS bash.
    Once again, the Lincoln takes a really tasty shot.
    I don’t know why?
    And what frame does this Volvo sit upon?
    Is it the same as the MKS and Taurus?
    The MKS is selling well, and nobody can show me a car with the same offerings for the same price.
    None.
    While in Florida for a week looking at houses, the realtor drove us around in a base MKS and it was really a nice car…if you don’t need to see out the back.

  • avatar
    Durask

    Robert Farago :

    IMHO, these days a typical Volvo customer wants something a) not what everyone else is driving b) preferably European c) but not BMW or MB. There is some cross-pollination between Audi and Volvo customers for that reason. In short, this is a very small and fickle group. The rest of the buying public has no interest in Volvo. Not upscale enough for MB buyers, not sporty enough for BMW buyers, not reliable enough for Lexus buyers. “Old school” Volvo buyers long ago abandoned the brand for Subaru.

    XC60 is the most marketable car they’ve come up with in many years. Will it save the brand – I am not sure, but it is a great car that is easily as good as the competition.

    That being said, I recently started noticing quite a few of XC90s around me – local dealer is running very good deals on those. Heck, my brother recently bought a demo XC90 V8 which I was not impressed with, XC60 is better in almost every conceivable aspect.

  • avatar
    Detroit-Iron

    @ hltguy

    Where can I find Elvis singing “Tomorrow is a Long Time?” I would pay cash money for that.

  • avatar
    hdtestrider

    Harley-Davidson rents space at Ford proving grounds. My favorite was watching a Volvo station wagon doing the high speed 5 mile track at 155 m.p.h. with 4 people in it, while making no noise.

  • avatar
    escapenguin

    @Detroit-Iron

    Found it on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eTiOC5ixnk

    Didn’t look for any records, though.

  • avatar
    Rizo

    Robert, did you notice the extremely cheap and out of place looking start button?

    I was really looking forward to see this car in person at the auto show (In Vancouver, BC)

    They had an R-design model on display. Absolutely beautiful. I especially liked the steering wheel (oddly, I can’t find a single picture of it online).

    Then I noticed that ugly start button…such a huge turn off.

  • avatar
    Paul W

    The XC60 T6 IS a gas hog, no questions about it. Some car magazines have reported figures as low as 12 mpg when pushed. That’s why it’s not even available in Sweden.

    Volvo is struggling hard to come off as “green” (like everyone else) and the T6 ridiculous fuel economy completely spoils Volvo’s new image. Without a green image it becomes more difficult to receive government aid and/or bail-outs. If you can, on the other hand, the government is more than ready to throw tax money your way (Volvo’s new plug in).

  • avatar
    petergottlieb

    OCD indeed…

    I certainly have to disagree with RF’s opinion on the interior. I bought a V70 this past winter after cross-shopping Audi. One of the drivers of my decision was that Volvo’s current generation of interiors made the Audi feel cheap. In the Volvo, plastics are almost entirely soft touch, gaps are non-existent, and all the controls (except possibly the sunroof button) are intuitive and solid to the touch.

    Adaptive cruise control is a wonderful thing. It truly is one of those features that is much more useful, particularly on long trips, than I realized when I got the car. On the other hand, Park assist, in my car at least, is too sensitive. I turn it off most of the time.

  • avatar
    dcdriver

    Re: Lexus not yet having a car in this segement– well one of the reasons I think the RX sells so well is that it is sort of in-between the small and midsize SUV segments, so it can grab buyers looking at both.

    Thoese looking at a small CUV see that the RX is roomier than the X3, GLK, Q5, XC60 etc. (but not too big) and those looking at the ML, X5, MDX, XC90 see that the slightly smaller RX is just fine for their needs. It straddles both segments so it can get buyers looking at both small and midsize CUV’s.

  • avatar
    volvo

    Although few would cross shop them another vehicle that fits the xc60 profile quite closely is the RAV4 V6 AWD.

    Same dimensions, less weight.

    Volvo has much better ground clearance but significantly worse mileage and uses premium gas. Other specs are pretty close.

    I would imagine the 5 year operating cost of the xc60 would be much higher.

    The base RAV4 is $15,000 less and Limited version of the RAV4 optioned similarly to the xc60 is $10,000 less. Lots of cash to play around with.

    Is it worth $15,000 to have an appliance with “prestige” versus one that is common as dirt?

  • avatar
    Davekaybsc

    @RogerB34 :

    The S60 is only reliable because it’s a thousand years old. The S60 in its first few years was crap, which unfortunately for new XC60 owners is pretty much still Volvo’s MO. The S40/V50/C30 et all had lousy reliability out of the gate, with Volvo correcting (most) of the major problems by around year 3.

    Audis are good enough that I would put up with a few annoying unscheduled dealer visits. Volvos are not. This I think is part of the reason why all of the old buyers left for their trusty Subarus.

    For the record, in JD power’s latest VDS, Volvo as a brand scored FAR below Audi, and even well below BMW and Mercedes.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    I’m not really digging the exterior either. It looks like it could pass as an enty level Ford or Hyundai or something similar. I do not see 40K in the plain roundy side view. They got the front right though but it seems that with each successive redux some of the luxury makers are starting to lose there identity with bland rental car fodder with a fancy price tag.

  • avatar
    hltguy

    Detroit-Iron: “Tomorrow is a Long Time” by Elvis can be found on a number of releases, you can find it on the I Tunes store (and get the song for .99 cents!), or you can go to Elvis.com, the official Elvis website and go to the music section and find it there. It is on the “Spinout” album and several other albums. If none of those work, drop me your address to my e-mail address hltguy@aol.com, and I will send you a CD (no charge) of it and several other great, little known Elvis tunes. Elvis’s version of that song I personally believe was the best recording he did in the 60′s and Bob Dylan said it was best recording by anyone of any of his songs. In fact the three “bonus” songs at the end of the “Spinout” album (“bonus” meaning they were not used in the movie) were three of his best songs of the 60′s: “Tomorrow is a Long Time”; “Down in the Alley” and “I’ll Remember You”, those three songs could have been the foundation of a stellar album in 1966 but the songs ended up being treated as throwaways by RCA, a damn shame. Hope this help.
    Now back to cars…

  • avatar
    pb35

    I’m currently driving an XC90 V8 Sport. I stopped in to check out (not drive) the XC60 a few months back. I wasn’t crazy about the interior either, something seemed a little off to me. I have that same aluminum trim in my car and I don’t care for it either. The XC60 is much smaller on the inside and when my lease expires next year, I won’t be downgrading to an XC60. It seems like they compromised utility for style; I’m not a fan of these little utes to begin with. We’ll see how the XC60 R-Design looks when it comes out, though. It should have better seats than the standard XC as well.

    If Volvo really wanted me to purchase/lease another, they would drop that T6 in a V70 and I’ll buy. Please Volvo! Get with it.

    • 0 avatar
      drivebywire

      Agreed.
      I drove an XC60 for a day and hated it. The interior is cramped and visibility is terrible. The XC60 seems to combine the worst features of the XC90 and XC70.
      I think if Geely can invest in an updated XC90 for $25k, they’ll sell like ipods.

  • avatar
    Rizo

    here is a good shot of the interior:

    http://www.autospider.net/images/2008%20Geneva%20Motor%20Show/2009%20Volvo%20XC60%209.jpg

    I think the seats are from the R-design, yet the steering wheel is different. The one I saw had 3 tones (wood outside, metal middle and black leather inside and it was really thick).

    Ah…notice that ugly start button (yes, I’m really upset about it).

  • avatar
    Brendon from Canada

    @Davekaybsc: I just took a look at the latest VDS report, and I probably wouldn’t use Audi as a great comparison for reliability – sure, it’s much higher, but it also below average. It would appear that the only Euro competitor with good reliability is BMW…

    In any event, I actually like the look of it (and the LR2 which shares a fair bit of parts from what I understand) – seems better in the flesh then any picture I’ve seen – a very nice “crossover” look.

  • avatar
    ravenchris

    I will will make a very large feathered head piece and bones in my nose a permanent part of my daily wardrobe long before I purchase one of these…

  • avatar
    johnthacker

    Overall very comparable numbers, however XC60 is immediately labelled a “gas hog”.

    The difference between 15 and 18 is actually rather a lot. It means 1.1 gallons per 100 miles in the city. It’s much more significant than 3 MPG difference at a higher level. For example, that’s the same amount of extra gas consumption to travel 100 miles as the difference between 20 and 25 MPG, or 25 and 33 MPG, or between 33 and 50 MPG.

    Would you call two cars with 25 and 33 MPG “very comparable?” I don’t think so.

    Of course, in reality the XC60 and Q5 and RX aren’t going to be only city and no highway driving, in which case the combined comparison is more like between 18 and 20. But even the difference between 18 and 20 MPG (0.6 gallons per 100 miles) is like the difference between 25 and 29 MPG.

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    johnthacker,
    This difference between 15 and 18 is significant, but so is the difference in price between premium and regular gas, no?

  • avatar
    Akrontires

    and as I mentioned yesterday I am seeing over 20 mpg in my XC60…

    I question whether anyone who thinks the exterior is plain has ever seen one in the flesh.

  • avatar
    wjo

    I first saw an XC60 in the wilderness parked on a Paris street — it looked good.

    I saw the XC60 at a local auto show together with several competitors. It fared well IMHO — sometimes you try on a car and it fits/feels right, other times it doesn’t. The XC60 does this very well — Volvo’s in general do fit and feel well. That’s why we own two of them — these are cars with excellent ergonomics and reasonable luxury. I don’t understand the argument that the Volvo isn’t up to par with its under $50k competitors from any brand. Especially with wood trim, the Volvo makes a compelling statement that eschews button excess for ergonomic simplicity. (And no, Audi interiors aren’t the standard they used to be…the ’96 A4 I had was a standard setter in its time, but at best the Audi has been standing still with interiors — or getting more dour.)

  • avatar
    jmo

    “Adaptive Cruise Control, Collision Warning with Auto-Brake”

    Huh? Adaptive Cruise Control is the coolest thing ever! And from the number of people I see reading the paper and shaving their legs in rush hour traffic – the auto-brake festure should reduce all of our chances of getting rear ended by idiots. (which has happened to me twice by the way)

  • avatar
    Opus

    Motor Trend review of this class:

    Spoiler: Audi wins

    Car&Driver did the same comparison, plus the BMW.
    (Not posted online yet)

    Spoiler: Audi wins

    Both of them had the XC60 “in the money”.

  • avatar
    NickR

    Which is just as well for a four-plus-one seater that burns gas at 15/22 mpg.

    You’ve got to be kidding. That is abysmal. I guess it’s a new category of cute-ute. The gas-sucking non lard-ass.

  • avatar
    jybt

    I just don’t get how it is that you, out of all the experts, are the only ones that manage to find flaws in interiors. How difficult is it to determine if just that little space has cheap materials? I’d like some sort of insight into how they do things around here.

  • avatar
    George329

    Hilarious and biting review with a generally positive outcome for the model, but less so for the make. But I think you’re missing the point of today’s Volvo brand and what a narrow section of the populace continues to find appealing about it. They’re the disdainful, rejectionists of the self-indulgence and vulgarities emblematic in other makes, both lesser and greater. Their narcissism is merely masked as a 2nd derrivative. Cheap materials on an expensive Volvo model? Thanks for the heads-up but that’s not gonna stop “us”. Lackluster fuel economy and handling? Thanks, but “we” weren’t asking Volvo for those things. A long-standing heritage of building durable vault-like cars with a subtle elegance of purpose? Well, you can’t take that dream away from “us” or we’ll have nowhere to turn.

  • avatar
    mcc

    Seriously guys if you can afford to buy the XC60, Q5 etc. who really cares how much fuel it uses. If you can’t afford the fuel it uses you shouldn’t buy it, buy a Kia or a Hyundai or some tiny car that runs on an oily rag.

    At least they have the balls to tell you up front how much gas it uses unlike the Mazda CX-7 who gives you bullshit figures to the dismay of owners who can never get close to it.

    XC60 great handling so is the Q5 depending which model you get. If it has the Audi drive select, even on comfort it is a stiff ride compared to one that hasn’t got that fitted.

    Agree with the cheap arse start button on the XC60

  • avatar
    mhadi

    As someone who actually owns a new Volvo XC70, I would agree that the XC60 interior materials used are of lower quality. This surprised me quite a bit when I sat in the XC60 – it seemed to me that Volvo produced their finest car in the 70/80 range and now have been cost cutting. Another example is that the XC70 / V70 has a gas strut to lift and hold the cargo area storage lid, while the XC60 does not.

    I don’t like this review for the simple fact that it does not take competitors into consideration: the Volvo’s closest competitor, the BMW X3, is just awful in all aspects. Judge a product by its competition, and not be what could be if each one cost a million. If money were not a factor, the interior of the vehicle would be built like a Rolls-Royce.

  • avatar
    AnUnidentifiedMale

    I can’t believe you used the word “hoonery”. Did you really have to? I had hoped that word (and its variations) had died in 2008.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States