By on August 26, 2014

volvo-16

Photos of the Volvo XC90 have leaked ahead of the car’s official debut next month.

Built on Volvo’s new scalable architecture, the XC90 replaces the decade-old XC90, and features a lineup of turbocharged 4-cylinder engines.

The range topping T8 (as it will be known – presumably to symbolize V8 power) will make 400 horsepower and 472 lb-ft of torque from a 4-cylinder engine that is both turbocharged and supercharged. The T8 will also utilize a plug-in hybrid system to give it 24 miles of electric range and CO2 emissions of 60 grams per kilometer – about 33 percent better than a non-plug-in Toyota Prius.

Also on tap are two non-hybrid four-cylinder engines, a T6 four-cylinder making 320 hp and a T5 unit making 254 hp. Two diesels will be offered as well, but likely for world markets.

A new suite of active safety features, including an updated auto-braking system is also a crucial part of the XC90’s sales proposition – and as Tim Cain notes, Volvo needs this car to be a big hit, after letting their flagship langush unchanged for over a decade.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

90 Comments on “2016 Volvo XC90 Revealed...”


  • avatar
    JohnnyFirebird

    I’m happy that they kept the chunky styling. It doesn’t look like every swoopy, Bug-like crossover.

    Also: my job depends on this car being a success, so, yay! It’s nice looking.

    What do you guys think of the plastic cladding seen in a couple of pictures? As a used car manager I always prefer cars with these as I work at a downtown dealer and low painted panels always get scuffed and dented to heck, and it’s way easier to replace plastic. These should be mandatory with leasing, heh.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    Attractive, and it appears to have hit all of Volvo’s major design targets. The roofline appears lower than competitors, not too far removed from the XC70. Miles of wheelbase. The interior is a generation ahead of the MDX.

  • avatar

    Don’t you mean “2016-2028 Volvo XC90 Revealed”?

    Seriously though, aside from the distressingly illogical radio interface even the aged current model is a handsome-looking vehicle and iconic in its own right.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnnyFirebird

      The new owners are promising a much more rapid turnaround for models now, after languishing under Ford. The XC60 will be around for almost half as long before refreshing!

    • 0 avatar
      tuffjuff

      @Flybrian

      Touche. Thankfully Volvo’s stuff ages pretty well, at least in my opinion. The XC60 is how old now? And it still looks modern and fresh.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        2008!

        Had to look it up. Could have swore the XC60 wasn’t offered until 2010 or 11. It is indeed aging well. They seem to hold their value alright as well – but again it’s one of those that’s hard to find in well-optioned guise used (like most Volvo cars).

        • 0 avatar
          JohnnyFirebird

          US / Canadian models showed up as a 2010. Usually the T6 comes well-equipped. 3.2s are pretty base. We’ve got a 2010 T6 black on two-tone with a CPO warranty for $26,000 Canadian, about 55,000 miles on the clock. I buy pretty much all the lease return XC60s we get, they’re really good sellers used. Same with XC70s. And S80s, oddly enough.

          • 0 avatar

            If you don’t care about all the lavish appointments, you can almost completely rob late-model (i.e. 2013-14MY) Volvos at any auction. A surprising amount of daily rental Volvos out there. I bought two Premiers for customers who specifically wanted one for about $29,8 and $30,7 (MSRP at the time was $42,750+) with 13k and 9k miles respectively.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Flybrian

            Which models were they?

          • 0 avatar

            @28
            The ones I bought were XC90 Premiers.

            Today, there are like a dozen S60s and XC60s running. All with under 10k mi.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Thx for the info. Our local Volvo dealer was retailing an MY11 S80/18K for $25K a few months back. I was trying to talk my mum into it but nada.

        • 0 avatar

          It pisses me off that projector-beam headlamps (let alone HIDs) are optional on most Volvo models. But this new one may break that trend.

  • avatar
    kosmo

    Looks good. We “enthusiasts” on TTAC will lament the demise of the inline six engine, but Volvo’s livelihood depends on worldwide success, and T4 engines seem to be the call (hooray to Honda for bucking this trend).

    I’m with Johnny on the cladding. Although it can look a bit tacky, as a guy who regularly drives on gravel roads, I’m here to tell you it holds up much better than beautifully painted steel panels.

    Ignoring world-wide implications for the moment, if this model is to reverse Volvo’s U.S. decline, it MUST be priced aggressively. Sadly, very, very few would choose this over an MDX or RX 350 if price is equal.

    • 0 avatar
      bosozoku

      I’d take one of these over an MDX/RX any day.

      …if someone else were making the payments.

      The styling and interior landscape of this Volvo are in a different league than its Japanese/German rivals, but I just couldn’t see plonking down Lux-UV money for something with unknown reliability. And frankly, Volvo is, of late at least, known foremost for sketchy quality and highly-variable reliability.

      Lexus/Acura, for their milquetoast shortcomings, at least build vehicles that can be depended on, rather than special snowflakes requiring an enduring relationship with a specialty mechanic.

      That said, please prove me wrong Volvo! I’d love to pick one of these up used in a few years while the current Volvo depreciation factor of old still holds.

      • 0 avatar

        Well, Volvos are still expensive to repair in a way that Lexus and Acura vehicles are not, but the base-powertrain XC90s seem to hold up well. That would be the 2.5-liter turbo I-5, and (post-facelift) the 3.2-liter N/A I-6. Like you, though, I have no idea how Volvo’s new powertrains are going to be in terms of reliability.

    • 0 avatar
      Trauto

      +1

      “…it MUST be priced aggressively.”

      Damned with faint praise, indeed.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      For free it would be this, for money it would be the RX.

  • avatar
    Jesse

    I like it. Very understated and urbane. And it appears to have greenhouse glass that you can actually see out of. No upward swoop in the rear.

    Remember that this car is supposed to set the future design language for Volvo. This could make for a very nice boxy wagon.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnnyFirebird

      You’ll notice that it’s bucking the current design language of having the rear hatch glass match the height of the side windows – here it’s lower, so you can actually, you know, see out of the back when reversing. Though it’ll have cameras and all that too, I find mirrors and looking backwards leaves me less confused.

    • 0 avatar
      segfault

      Exactly what I was thinking, it looks like it will have excellent visibility compared to a lot of current cars.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Since T6 means turbo 4, I would expect T8 to mean turbo 6. I don’t think Volvo will get back in to the V8 business – because 1) of how their last experience with Yamaha went, and 2) because they don’t have much money/incentive to develop one for it’s limited appeal in the US and zero appeal elsewhere.

  • avatar
    petezeiss

    Looks like a Chedish/Swinese Equinox with better sightlines.

  • avatar
    Davekaybsc

    Looks pretty good in a Range Rovery sort of way. The interior is definitely Volvo’s best effort by miles, and is leagues ahead at least in appearance of the cheap plastic Lexus and Acura. The issue is, if it has the interior to match the X5, ML, and whatever Audi ends up doing with its also very very old Q7, will it also be priced like those cars? Volvo has been waffling for years with their prices, seemingly unable to decide whether they want to compete with the Germans or the Japanese on price, and it hasn’t worked well for them.

    If this is going to save Volvo, they really need to pull a Hyundai and disrupt the market. $45-55K and they’ll have something. $55-65K and it’ll be just another high-end Euro wagon but without a German badge.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      How about $38-50K With 50 representing the loaded T8 PoleDesign Star TurboInscription-XL. They WILL overprice it, and they WILL gouge you for all options. It will cost just as much as the Audi or Merc equivalent. Alas, this is what they always do, which is a major part of their problem.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        No need to go lower than Acura. This one will sell just fine to lots of coastal buyers who want a luxury wagon but find the Benz and BMW options too showy. I can confidently predict that by one year from now I’ll be seeing fleets of these all over certain Seattle neighborhoods.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Actual starting price is reported to be between $48k – $65k, depending on trim level.

      You have to be a True Believer to buy one of these.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    It’s definitely a good looking car, and they didn’t go too trendy with it – immediately recognizable as a Volvo. Interior looks handsome as well, though I’d rethink the swirled metal trim in random areas, that part looked out of place.

    Now, assuming they price it appropriately it will get some decent sales figures. But that’s quite a big assumption to make. I think back to what they did to the S80, and how they priced that as “Oh look a 5-Series serious competitor!” when they should have said “Look, a 5-Series competitor at Lexus ES price!”

    • 0 avatar

      Right. I figure Acura MDX, QX60, MKT and Enclave territory (around $42,500 to start) would be a better route. The MDX, for example, is an excellent entry that addresses just about everything its target market would want in such a vehicle, but its somewhat-insecure styling makes it easy prey for a car that’s got really good looks and is priced similarly. At $48K to start (which will likely be in excess of $50K for any decent options), the XC90 is going to go up against stiffer competition…and lose.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        And it will be more fragile than the MDX to boot, and you get less money back at time of sale. The MDX has always held it’s value VERY well, and is so proven by now it’s not even funny.

        That being said, I do much prefer this styling to the herpy-derp rear end and many-sparkle lights front of the current MDX.

        • 0 avatar
          tuffjuff

          @Corey

          There ain’t nothin’ proven about that new V6 in the refreshed MDX, this coming from a guy who watched the release and reviews of the new MDX like a hawk intent to eventually buy one. Google “Acura MDX NVH” or “Acura MDX V6 harshness” to see what I mean. Oh, and two grand plus to replace a headlight module? No thanks.

  • avatar
    Vipul Singh

    Looks blind!

  • avatar
    PRNDLOL

    The sheetmetal between the wheels is a little boring, and the interior is unremarkable. Not bad, just nothing special about it.

  • avatar
    Joshua Johnson

    I like the XC90 after having one as a rental a few months back and I quite like the interior of this new version. Add to that turbo-supercharging, yes please! However,some of the design elements of the exterior look too much like other brands: the grille reminds me of the Buick waterfall, the front lights the current Range Rover, and the side profile the new Dodge Durango.

  • avatar
    bryanska

    Ouch, that grill is from the final Buick minivan. Everything else is amazeballs.

  • avatar
    Tstag

    Looks too much like an X5 and the centre console doesn’t look quite right.

    Loved the original when it was launched but disappointed by this.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    My only main disappointment is how Chinese it looks.
    Which by that I point to all

  • avatar
    Hummer

    My only main disappointment is how Chinese it looks.
    Which by that I point to all of the poorly done copycat vehicles they (China) continue to produce. The escalade truck comes to mind.
    Honestly the Swedish/Volvo look seems like an afterthought.

    “Hey lets make a copy of those Volvo vehicles… (95% complete later) …oh wait, we own Volvo.”

    I’m not sure how to explain it, but door handles down on the side view just seems off.

  • avatar

    This is really good. It’s handsome without having a super-tall belt line like most of the other crossovers on the market. The only other SUV I can think of that has as much glass real-estate is the Range Rover.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      The Expedition and Navigator still have a good amount of glass. Since they are truck based, they probably shouldn’t count though.

      • 0 avatar

        Right. I should have specified “only crossover”. What’s more, I like that they’ve kept the tall windowettes on the rear doors instead of using the plastic triangles (a la MDX, QX60, Q7, etc…). I’ve always preferred that look.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I like that too. Ford does that on all of their D-Platform crossovers. The Explorer has some crazy stuff going on behind the rear doors because of the wrap around glass on the back. I try to imagine what the Explorer would look like with the greenhouse of a Range Rover or the Flex and I think it would be better.

  • avatar
    hifi

    The interior design is okay, though I was expecting something earth shattering based on the teaser pics. The attention to detail looks top notch. On the exterior… Aside from the aggressive headlamps (dislike,) the great wheel options, and the striking tail lamps (love!) the exterior looks very outdated. As if it’s based on a fifteen year old design.

    I just don’t see anything here that will hook buyers. The competition is fiercely protecting their turf. Here’s another thing that will continue to be a pain-point for Volvo… I was raised in a Volvo family, a Volvo neighborhood actually. Ever since Volvo sold to Geely, no one is replacing their old Volvos with new Volvos anymore. A lot of people have issues with Chinese-derived products. It also doesn’t appear that Volvo is a leader in “safety” any longer. Or at least they don’t promote themselves as leaders anymore.

    If Volvo wants to overcome this, the products need to be revolutionary. Not conventional designs. And they need to continue to develop and be a leader in the area of safety.

  • avatar
    GS 455

    So far the comments are that it resembles a Terrain, Equinox, Range Rover, an X5 and that it looks Chinese. In other words, generic.

  • avatar
    carguy

    The T8 sounds like an amazing powertrain on paper at least. Maybe the death of all but forced induction 4 and 3 cylinder ICEs is coming sooner than thought?

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    This looks almost exactly the same as the P2 XC90, in fact I think I prefer the last refresh over this.

    I wonder how much of the new “Volvo Scalable Product Platform (SPA)” is carbon copied from the circa 1998 Volvo P2 platform?

    I wonder if it can accept RWD… then we might have something.

  • avatar
    W.Minter

    Please, don’t C&P/use the Prius FE comparison number from the Swedes, it’s extremely misleading. In fact, the Prius is 43% BETTER than the XC90.
    Laws of physics vs. PR – 1:0.

    Reason:
    The XC90 PHEV(T8)’s 60 g/km is calculated on the euro cycle for PHEVs. The Prius’ 89 g/km is calculated the non-plug-in-way, which differs dramatically.

    The Euro formula for CO2 for plug-ins:
    K =(K1*ER+K2*Eav)/(ER+Eav)
    K fuel consumption combined
    K1 fuel consumption / full battery / in l/100km (mostly 0, because the cycle is only 11 km long, every PHEV will make it)
    K2 fuel consumption / empty battery / in l/100km (the interesting number)
    ER Electric range in km
    Eav Electric average range between reloading = 25 km (one number for all, yeah)

    Hilarious.

    How to get K2?
    K2 = (K*(ER + Eav)) / Eav

    Back to the XC90.
    K = 60 g/km. ER = 40 km electric range.
    40 km + 25 km = 65 km.
    65 km * 60 g/km = 3900 g
    3900 g / 25 km = 156 g/km

    Hooray. The Volvo XC 90 fuel efficiency with empty battery is 156 g/km. That’s 6.72 l/100 km (Euro cycle).

    That’s 21% better than a X5 35i w/ similar power (197 g). That’s great!
    Compared to EPA numbers: X5 35i sDrive = 22 mpg combined (10.69 l/100km).
    My estimate for the XC 90 T8 (10.69 lhk – 21% = 8.45 lhk): 29 mpg combined w/ empty batteries.
    In context: Lexus RX450h: 30mpg.
    Laws of physics (heavy batteries)…
    So, even with empty batteries, the XC90 will give you the fuel economy of a RX450h, the gold standard for fuel efficient SUVs, plus will give you in addition some miles of electric range and 400 hp combined. Good job, engineers. Bad jobs, PR folks.

    Back to the Prius comparison.

    Prius (Euro cycle): 89 g/km
    –> Prius 43% better than XC90.

    Prius Plug-in (Euro cycle): 49 g/km
    Apples to oranges comparison:
    –> Prius Plug-in 18% better than XC90

    BUT:
    Apples to apples comparison:
    49 g/km. 25 km electric range.
    25 km + 25 km = 50 km.
    50 km * 49 g/km = 2450 g
    2450 g / 25 km = 98 g/km
    –> Prius Plug-in 37% better than XC90

    You see: FE of the Plug-in is worse than the traditional hybrid, because heavier batteries; but usually no one buys a PHEV without recharging … except:
    Some Dutch Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV drivers (because subventions.

    Let’s compare the XC 90 to the Mitsubishi Outlander (2.0, less power)
    44 g CO2. 52 km range.
    –> Outlander 27% better than XC 90 (apples to oranges)

    Apples to apples comparison:
    44 g/km. 52 km electric range.
    52 km + 25 km = 77 km.
    77 km * 44 g/km = 3388 g
    3388 g / 25 km = 136 g/km
    –> Outlander 13% better than XC 90.

  • avatar
    Steinweg

    I’m not usually interested in an SUV launch, but got sucked in by the teaser shots of the interior and headlights that have been anticipating this car for months. And in the end, I must say that it is a handsome machine. Shades of VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne in the profile of the greenhouse, and an uninspiring Hoffmeister-kink in the 3rd pane of glass, notwithstanding, it definitely works. The numbers on they hybrid are super impressive. The interior does look like the nicest place to be this side of a Rolls Royce. Quality and durability are TBD, but if they put as much thought and attention into that as they did into the interior design, it will be a rock.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    Are you sure thats not the next Ford Escape?

  • avatar
    probert

    If I ever get insomnia I can just look at a picture of this incredibly dull brick. Truly timeless: in 20 years it will still be an incredibly dull brick.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    It’s a nice looking SUV. Definitely derivative styling from VW, BMW and Porsche, but then, they look good, so who cares. It’s Volvo after all.

    As an XC90 owner now, my 2 big questions are:

    1) Have they got the transmission issues resolved? Please, please, please use a ZF. The Aisin in our XC90 is no bueno. I’m not the only one to kvetch about this.

    2) Please, please, please up the quality of materials and fit and finish. Ours looks fine, but for a premium car made in 2007, I expected fewer rattles. The leather is good, but there are a few dash rattles, and some of the door pieces don’t seem to fit right. It’s a detail that my wife doesn’t notice, but drives me batsh*&^. On the plus side, the non-upgraded stereo sounds really good.

    We bought a demo 2007 and the repairs we’ve had outside of normal maintenance have been limited to bad wiring for a driver side speaker and a wiring harness repair that stranded my wife and cost us 3 days of rental plus the $700 repair. Since we got it CPO, some of the pricey regular maintenance (strut tower I believe) was covered.

    That wiring harness repair sucked, but that’s the risk and cost of driving a 7 year old car.

    My bigger worry is that the transmission is a ticking time bomb. As soon as they kids are out of their big car seats, I’m trading this in.

    Lastly, why in the hell is Volvo not building a minivan?? Fellas, do you know how many Chrysler and Honda sales you could steal??

  • avatar
    Tstag

    I keep looking at this car and the more I look the more Asian in design it seems. At first I thought I was imagining it but then I went on a UK car website and it was awash with similar comments. I’m not sure that will hurt Volvo outside of Europe but in Europe it could hurt a lot where tastes are European.

  • avatar
    petezeiss

    I love that one photo where its doing HUD targeting of that effing bicyclist. That’ll be huge in China.

  • avatar
    300zx_guy

    Generic and inoffensive pretty much sums it up for the exterior. Only the tail lamps and the slash across the grille say “Volvo”. On the plus side, the shape and the large glass should make for a practical, easy to live with SUV. The interior is what is most likely to sell this car, but first you have to get customers to look inside – that’s Volvo’s challenge. If I were in the market for this type of car (I’m not), I’d only lease, based on reliability fears, and I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that way. Hopefully they will have competitive lease prices, but that will be tough with expected poor residual values against the competition. Good luck to them, the more choices, the better.

    • 0 avatar
      pb35

      That’s what I did with my V8 XC that I purchased back in 2007. I leased it for 3 years at a great rate and then bought it at the end of lease as I knew by that time that I had a “good one.”

      I would probably do the same with this new model if I was going to purchase one. My wife has been hinting that she wants to get back into a sedan once the kids are out of their car seats, however.

    • 0 avatar
      natrat

      generic is being kind, boring it is in a lincoln kind of way. But my those engines are potent but reliability ha ha, a car you might not want to own out of warranty, a distant memory are the 500k mile volvos of the past

  • avatar
    mahdigga

    It’s going to sell like crazy here in the NYC metro area. I can already see soccer moms in North Jersey and Long Island snapping these up as if they were free.

    I actually like the design. If they price it right, cheaper than a Range Rover, but more expensive than the Lexus RX, they’re gold.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    Oh how the mighty have fallen. It seems like just yesterday that one of these puppies could be equipped with an honest to goodness V8.

    CAFE can go TRUCK itself.

    At least the Chinese had the good sense to put a REAL LIFTGATE on it instead of that two pice toilet lid that was smacked on the rear end before.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Kyree S. Williams: Hyundai did an even better job on the split-level headlights with the new Santa Fe, which is a...
  • SaulTigh: I flew an Allegiant A319 to Vegas last year. It’s a sweet little plane (and has never had a hull loss...
  • salmonmigration: I used to haul baskets of rigging chain around in a Tacoma back when I worked up in Alaska. Never...
  • Corey Lewis: It’s a mess. There’s so much clutter, which is the opposite of luxury.
  • Corey Lewis: G90 is here for your large sedan needs.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States