My Personal Car Reviews: Volvo XC60 D5

I've found seat comfort to be a lot like the Pepsi Challenge.

In the Pepsi Challenge, people were given about one ounce of the soft drinks. On average, people preferred the Pepsi Cola over Coke. The Pepsi Challenge was designed to let Pepsi come out on top. People tended to like Pepsi more when given just a small taste. But give someone a whole glass or a whole can, and the numbers flip, and Coke comes out on top. Moral: Pepsi is good after just a small dose, but after experiencing more of it, you'd prefer the Coke.

I find that seats that provide an instant "Ooh! This feels nice!" feeling end up being too soft and uncomfortable not only after longer journeys, but they just don't hold up as well over time.
 
^I've spent a lot of time in Volvo seats and to me they never gets uncomfy...
Then again, there are no seats that are more comfy than the one in my Lolvo, it's shaped after my ass! :D
 
NecroJoe said:
I've found seat comfort to be a lot like the Pepsi Challenge.

In the Pepsi Challenge, people were given about one ounce of the soft drinks. On average, people preferred the Pepsi Cola over Coke. The Pepsi Challenge was designed to let Pepsi come out on top. People tended to like Pepsi more when given just a small taste. But give someone a whole glass or a whole can, and the numbers flip, and Coke comes out on top. Moral: Pepsi is good after just a small dose, but after experiencing more of it, you'd prefer the Coke.

I find that seats that provide an instant "Ooh! This feels nice!" feeling end up being too soft and uncomfortable not only after longer journeys, but they just don't hold up as well over time.
Click to expand...

That's why I do overnight test drives for people.
 
Well, if there were one or two things wrong with the XC60, I wouldn't be so harsh with my criticism. But there are a lot of things, some small, some not so small, which add up to an overall unpleasant experience.

The seats are just one part of it. The whole thing about me not being able to find a convenient sitting position, bothered me a lot. That and the fact that the arm rest is about 10 cm too low for my ellbows.

I have had no problems with finding good sitting positions in a VW Scirocco, a Passat CC, a Mercedes C-Class, a Ford Mondeo, etc. So why did I have them in the Volvo XC60?

I switch cars a lot recently and that makes me able to compare. Today I have a BMW X5 again. Okay, it's way out of the price league of the Volvo but there are literally worlds between them.

Maybe the Volvo can be outfitted with better seats. That doesn't solve the other problems I mentioned in my review. There are many things in the XC60, which seem like somebody didn't think the whole thing through to the end. It feels unfinished.

P.S.: Best seats I ever sat in, where the ones in the current Mercedes S-Class.
 
Last edited:
The interior driving video gave me a seizure.
What the fuck, man. >.>
 
What do you mean?
 
It was just a test recording to try out my new camera anyway :)
 
MacGuffin said:
Well, if there were one or two things wrong with the XC60, I wouldn't be so harsh with my criticism. But there are a lot of things, some small, some not so small, which add up to an overall unpleasant experience.

The seats are just one part of it. The whole thing about me not being able to find a convenient sitting position, bothered me a lot. That and the fact that the arm rest is about 10 cm too low for my ellbows.

I have had no problems with finding good sitting positions in a VW Scirocco, a Passat CC, a Mercedes C-Class, a Ford Mondeo, etc. So why did I have them in the Volvo XC60?

I switch cars a lot recently and that makes me able to compare. Today I have a BMW X5 again. Okay, it's way out of the price league of the Volvo but there are literally worlds between them.

Maybe the Volvo can be outfitted with better seats. That doesn't solve the other problems I mentioned in my review. There are many things in the XC60, which seem like somebody didn't think the whole thing through to the end. It feels unfinished.

P.S.: Best seats I ever sat in, where the ones in the current Mercedes S-Class.
Click to expand...


Ahh that explains it then. Your body type is just vastly different then mine. I found the S-Class Merc seats to be very uncomfortable. I like almost all the Volvo seats except for sometimes the seats in the S40/V50. Some of the older used ones of those I just can't get comfortable in.

All the US XC60s have power adjustable driver seats and only the base XC60 3.2 is missing leather and a power adjustable passenger seat.

I can't comment on the diesel engines as we don't get them here but the gas T6 motor has plenty of power. The regular 3.2 is ok and since you only get one mpg more by going with the 3.2 I would probably get the T6 if I was going to buy one.

Have you driven the other small SUVs in this segment? If you think the ride in the XC60 is comfy but only marginal so then you will hate every other SUV you mentioned. The X3 has probably the least comfortable ride of any of them. Way, way too rough and I don't care that it can corner it is a big wagon on stilts it doesn't need to corner like that. The Q5 rides almost as bad but the interior is ok. The Tiquan is cheap on the inside and the 2.0T motor is underpowered.

I haven't been in a GLK but it just looks way too bizarre for me to like. I don't like the GL or the ML so I doubt I would like the GLK.

Motor Trend put the XC60 second in their last comparison.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...50_mercedes_benz_glk350_volvo_xc60/index.html

As for it not handling well I can only assume the diesel model gets a different suspension then the T6 model.

After driving the 2010 Volvo XC60 through our slalom test at 65.1 mph ? the second-fastest speed we've recorded in this vehicle segment ? two observations were easy to make: 1) This SUV handles ? probably better than it needs to; 2) will anyone care?
 
Last edited:
About 90 % of all SUV's here are diesels. So it is vital for any car maker to offer a good diesel version. Volvo fails to deliver an attractive diesel option with the D5 -- and that is a major business handicap over here.

Frankly it's a mystery to me, why customers in the USA (one of the most restricted countries on Earth, when it comes to driving fast with cars) think they need the most powerful engine versions. Why??? They spend, I understand, most of their time going between 55 and 65 mph on boring multilane roads without the necessity to overtake anyone ;)

Personally I prefer a good diesel engine -- when it is combined with a good automatic gearbox -- over any petrol engine with the same amount of HP. The diesel is better to drive, has lots more torque and uses much less fuel.

I cannot compare the XC60 with any of its direct competitors yet. I have only driven bigger SUV's before (namely the ML and the X5) but it's the attention to detail that's missing from the Volvo, which I learned to appreciate in any of their German competitors. I could have gotten the GLK with the 3.5 liter petrol engine but that engine needs to be reved a lot, so I didn't want it. Maybe next time I see a Ford Kuga at the rental, I will get it.

The fact that you can get rid of some of the flaws by ordering optional extras, doesn't change my opinion, because even the most basic VW's come with good seats as standard.

We all know that Volvo has been nearly bankrupt for years and years. I have no idea about all the reasons that lead to it -- but I have gotten quite a good idea about why people maybe don't want to buy their cars so much anymore.
 
Last edited:
Good review. I love the exterior design of that Volvo, especially the front with the two small lamps. Love the sound that comes from the engine, it really looks like a boat. Hate the interior and the dashboard. The screen is too small and looks like its mounted sideways and why splitting the radio screen from the main screen? It makes no sense. The steering wheel is awful and the seats look really cheap.
 
MacGuffin said:
About 90 % of all SUV's here are diesels. So it is vital for any car maker to offer a good diesel version. Volvo fails to deliver an attractive diesel option with the D5 -- and that is a major business handicap over here.

Frankly it's a mystery to me, why customers in the USA (one of the most restricted countries on Earth, when it comes to driving fast with cars) think they need the most powerful engine versions. Why??? They spend, I understand, most of their time going between 55 and 65 mph on boring multilane roads without the necessity to overtake anyone ;)

Personally I prefer a good diesel engine -- when it is combined with a good automatic gearbox -- over any petrol engine with the same amount of HP. The diesel is better to drive, has lots more torque and uses much less fuel.

I cannot compare the XC60 with any of its direct competitors yet. I have only driven bigger SUV's before (namely the ML and the X5) but it's the attention to detail that's missing from the Volvo, which I learned to appreciate in any of their German competitors. I could have gotten the GLK with the 3.5 liter petrol engine but that engine needs to be reved a lot, so I didn't want it. Maybe next time I see a Ford Kuga at the rental, I will get it.

The fact that you can get rid of some of the flaws by ordering optional extras, doesn't change my opinion, because even the most basic VW's come with good seats as standard.

We all know that Volvo has been nearly bankrupt for years and years. I have no idea about all the reasons that lead to it -- but I have gotten quite a good idea about why people maybe don't want to buy their cars so much anymore.
Click to expand...


We can't get passenger car diesels in the US. The reasons are many but they won't be changing anytime soon. I would like a nice diesel too but I don't see many diesels coming to the US as long as BMW and Merc are stupid enough to only offer their extremely high powered diesels.

As for the rest I guess we just have to disagree. Everyone that comes into look at the XC60 is impressed with the interior. Maybe they Volvo is just cheaping out the interior on the XC60 for Europe or maybe rentals get the cheap interior like they do in the US.

The second thing they say is how incredibly comfortable the seats are. We sell VWs too and they are fine but the seats are not as good as Volvos.

The X5 is a much, much more expensive vehicle the the XC60. The XC60 with the T6 motor in the US starts at about 38,000 with standard leather, Sat radio, HD radio(I bet your XC60 had HD radio too and that is why you thought it was cutting out. HD radio is digital so you either get the full signal or none of it. In my area I have to shut of the HD option near my house cause of all the mountains) USB port, AUX port, AWD, bluetooth phone and City Safety plus a bunch of other stuff.

City Safety is pretty freaking cool too.

The X5 starts at 48,000 USD without leather I would sure hope it has a fancier interior.

The ML also starts at 46,000 USD without leather.

The X3 does start at about 1,000 USD more then the XC60 but still no leather standard.

The GLK is cheaper no doubt but like I said I haven't heard good things about it.
 
Could be worse - could be a Hyundai Tucson ;)
 
MacGuffin said:
They spend, I understand, most of their time going between 55 and 65 mph on boring multilane roads without the necessity to overtake anyone ;)
Click to expand...

Painfully outdated view. If I'm not in town, I'm going 80 on the interstate being passed by people right and left. Speed limits are only 55-65 when you go through heavily populated areas where such speeds are quite reasonable. The "trundling down the road at 55" thing has been gone nearly 30 years. Time to catch up.

As for the seats, I really see it as being like a mattress. One person's perfect is another's hellish. Now it's quite good to hear "I couldn't get it adjusted for me" because that means I might either and darn well better check it thoroughly with myself and anyone else who might drive. What's comfortable has a lot to do with your size, shape, driving position, posture, and all that individual stuff.
 
Last edited:
I must add that you drove the old 185hp D5 which has been phased out of production. The all-new 205hp unit that you get in an XC60 since April is vastly superior, more powerful, less noise, lower consumption and emissions.

British_Rover said:
The X5 is a much, much more expensive vehicle the the XC60. The XC60 with the T6 motor in the US starts at about 38,000 with standard leather, Sat radio, HD radio(I bet your XC60 had HD radio too and that is why you thought it was cutting out. HD radio is digital so you either get the full signal or none of it. In my area I have to shut of the HD option near my house cause of all the mountains) USB port, AUX port, AWD, bluetooth phone and City Safety plus a bunch of other stuff.
Click to expand...
HD Radio? Some places have DAB. Not us though, altough it's still running, nobody listens to it and the 15-year trial is likely to be terminated at the end of the year. All in all, 7000 radios were sold.
 
Last edited:
AiR said:
I must add that you drove the old 185hp D5 which has been phased out of production. The all-new 205hp unit that you get in an XC60 since April is vastly superior, more powerful, less noise, lower consumption and emissions.

HD Radio? Some places have DAB. Not us though, altough it's still running, nobody listens to it and the 15-year trial is likely to be terminated at the end of the year. All in all, 7000 radios were sold.
Click to expand...

Don't know what DAB is. I don't think it can be the same as HD radio though as it only came out a couple of years ago. HD radio is like HD over the air TV broadcasts. The signal is all digital, much clearer and you either have the single or you don't. There is no static with an HD radio broadcast.
 
British_Rover said:
Don't know what DAB is. I don't think it can be the same as HD radio though as it only came out a couple of years ago. HD radio is like HD over the air TV broadcasts. The signal is all digital, much clearer and you either have the single or you don't. There is no static with an HD radio broadcast.
Click to expand...

In another display of american ingenuity, they decided to invent the wheel again. HD Audio basically does the same thing DAB does: Digital transfer of radio signals. It even produces around the same output quality. Still, it is a closed standard, with even the used codecs being trade secrets, while DAB is an open standard and uses AAC.

Additionally, HD stands for the hybrid usage of the same FM frequency for digital and analogue broadcast, not for "high definition" as in "HD TV".

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Radio#Comparison_to_EU.27s_Digital_Radio )
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top