VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum banner

261 - 271 of 271 Posts

·
Turtles walk slowly, but get angry fast!
2021 RS6 Avant, 2019 Audi eTron, 2010 A6 Avant, 2002 Chevy 2500, 1988 16v Scircco
Joined
·
10,034 Posts
If no one told you that is what it has you'd never know.

But this is the first car my parents ever got an extended warranty on.....
Having driven many of them, I can tell immediately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Something wrong with the V90?
Yes, they are terrible from a wagon perspective. I've owned several Volvo's and love the brand but feel Volvo has lost their way. I've had a 2005 XC90 V8, 2007 S80 V8, 2013 XC90 3.2 and most recently a 2015.5 XC70 T6. The XC70 interior space went from 70.5 cu ft (with rear seats down) to 56 cu ft with the new V90. The 4 cylinder engine is unrefined, noisy under acceleration and under powered to move the heft of the V90 and at this price point that doesn't work for me. The new wagons may look nice, even that is debatable but people who buy wagons need the space and to drop the interior space by 25% makes no sense to me.

My wife isn't into cars. We went to test drive a V90 last year and merging onto the highway the engine was noisy and struggling to get up to speed. She said what is all that noise, the sales guy said its the turbo spooling up. I said to her, its the 4 cylinder engine struggling to move this 4300lb vehicle up the on ramp. The interiors are nice but they are too small inside and that engine is terrible.
 

·
Turtles walk slowly, but get angry fast!
2021 RS6 Avant, 2019 Audi eTron, 2010 A6 Avant, 2002 Chevy 2500, 1988 16v Scircco
Joined
·
10,034 Posts
The 4 cylinder engine is unrefined, noisy under acceleration and under powered to move the heft of the V90 and at this price point that doesn't work for me.
Literally my exact feeling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,947 Posts
Yes, they are terrible from a wagon perspective. I've owned several Volvo's and love the brand but feel Volvo has lost their way. I've had a 2005 XC90 V8, 2007 S80 V8, 2013 XC90 3.2 and most recently a 2015.5 XC70 T6. The XC70 interior space went from 70.5 cu ft (with rear seats down) to 56 cu ft with the new V90. The 4 cylinder engine is unrefined, noisy under acceleration and under powered to move the heft of the V90 and at this price point that doesn't work for me. The new wagons may look nice, even that is debatable but people who buy wagons need the space and to drop the interior space by 25% makes no sense to me.

My wife isn't into cars. We went to test drive a V90 last year and merging onto the highway the engine was noisy and struggling to get up to speed. She said what is all that noise, the sales guy said its the turbo spooling up. I said to her, its the 4 cylinder engine struggling to move this 4300lb vehicle up the on ramp. The interiors are nice but they are too small inside and that engine is terrible.
The V90 has 69 cu ft with the rear seats folded, 3 cu ft less then the lifted XC70 wagon/cuv look you said you don't want. CUVs will always have more space due to the raised roof line, if you want a traditional wagon, you accept the fact you get more floor space but the overall cu ft doesn't compare. The E450 wagon only has 64 cu ft and the VW Sportwagen only has 66.5.

Literally my exact feeling.
Under 3500 rpm it's perfectly fine, exactly where almost all of its owners keep it. It's no different than any modern diesel, loads of lowend torque but you don't really want to rev it unless you have to. Would I rather have a B58, of course. I'd also like a good brake system, which is the real flaw of the SPA vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
The V90 has 69 cu ft with the rear seats folded, 3 cu ft less then the lifted XC70 wagon/cuv look you said you don't want. CUVs will always have more space due to the raised roof line, if you want a traditional wagon, you accept the fact you get more floor space but the overall cu ft doesn't compare. The E450 wagon only has 64 cu ft and the VW Sportwagen only has 66.5.



Under 3500 rpm it's perfectly fine, exactly where almost all of its owners keep it. It's no different than any modern diesel, loads of lowend torque but you don't really want to rev it unless you have to. Would I rather have a B58, of course. I'd also like a good brake system, which is the real flaw of the SPA vehicles.
You're in denial. I'm currently driving an X5 35d and I've owned a Touareg diesel and a Jetta wagon TDI, the Volvo 4 cylinder engine is NOTHING like a diesel. Really?

You wish the V90 had 69 cu ft of space, its tiny. I don't care what car and driver says, here is the link to Volvo's own specs: https://www.volvocars.com/us/cars/new-models/v90/specs Look under Capacity and Cargo Capacity is 53.9 cu ft.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,743 Posts
Discussion Starter #266
Literally my exact feeling.
100 percent agree with this having owned a 2017 S90 T6. And at altitude the engine is horrific because with the twin charge, it doesn’t know what to do with the loss of HP to the N/A engine at what time. It would lag real hard, then overboost just as the supercharger kicked in. I honestly hated the Powertrain on that car, yet it looked so damn good. The terrible power delivery was a major reason we got rid of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,947 Posts
You're in denial. I'm currently driving an X5 35d and I've owned a Touareg diesel and a Jetta wagon TDI, the Volvo 4 cylinder engine is NOTHING like a diesel. Really?
Yes, really, its lowend torque is exactly like it was in my 328d Touring. The supercharger provides the off idle torque like a diesel and when it hands over to the turbo is when things get a little clackity.

You wish the V90 had 69 cu ft of space, its tiny. I don't care what car and driver says, here is the link to Volvo's own specs: https://www.volvocars.com/us/cars/new-models/v90/specs Look under Capacity and Cargo Capacity is 53.9 cu ft.
SAE V2 cargo capacity is 69.0 cu ft, here is the link to Volvo's own specs: https://www.media.volvocars.com/us/en-us/models/v90/2019/specifications
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,754 Posts
The 4 cylinder engine is unrefined, noisy under acceleration and under powered to move the heft of the V90 and at this price point that doesn't work for me. The new wagons may look nice, even that is debatable but people who buy wagons need the space and to drop the interior space by 25% makes no sense to me.
Literally my exact feeling.
I have the same feelings. Makes modern Volvos a hard pass for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Yes, really, its lowend torque is exactly like it was in my 328d Touring. The supercharger provides the off idle torque like a diesel and when it hands over to the turbo is when things get a little clackity.



SAE V2 cargo capacity is 69.0 cu ft, here is the link to Volvo's own specs: https://www.media.volvocars.com/us/en-us/models/v90/2019/specifications
No idea what that measurement is but if it is 69.0 cu ft then an XC70 using that version of measurement must be twice as big because there is no way the V90 has anywhere near the same space as a XC70. This is a fools argument so I'm done.

If you knew anything about diesel engines then your argument is null. Diesel engines have very high torque numbers compared to their HP ratings and achieve about 25% to 30% higher fuel efficiency than the same vehicle with a gas engine. The T6 (not a real T6) in the V90 does neither of those things.

T6
HP -316
Torque - 295lbs ft.

My X5 35d
HP - 250
Torque - 419

Real world fuel consumption numbers for the V90 (and XC90 T6) have not been near their estimated numbers because that little 2.0 litre has to haul that massive 4300 lb car around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,947 Posts
No idea what that measurement is but if it is 69.0 cu ft then an XC70 using that version of measurement must be twice as big because there is no way the V90 has anywhere near the same space as a XC70. This is a fools argument so I'm done.
There are standards used to measure cargo area, if you choose not to believe the standard, OK.

If you knew anything about diesel engines then your argument is null. Diesel engines have very high torque numbers compared to their HP ratings and achieve about 25% to 30% higher fuel efficiency than the same vehicle with a gas engine. The T6 (not a real T6) in the V90 does neither of those things.

T6
HP -316
Torque - 295lbs ft.

My X5 35d
HP - 250
Torque - 419
Right, and you're comparing a 6 cylinder diesel to a 4 cylinder petrol, the T6 holds up nicely even against the larger 6. For example, my 328d had 180 hp @ 4000 rpm and 280 lb-ft @ 1750-2750 rpm, the standard T6 provides better torque 295 lb-ft from 2200-5400 rpm, you still have that low rpm diesel like torque over a much broader rev range and it still has the higher rpm hp that no diesel can match. The Polestar tune bumps the power figures to 330/325 and provides an even larger mid rpm power and torque increase than the overall numbers suggest. Of course it's not going to match diesel like fuel economy but it's also a much more flexible engine that provides torque and hp all across the power band.

Real world fuel consumption numbers for the V90 (and XC90 T6) have not been near their estimated numbers because that little 2.0 litre has to haul that massive 4300 lb car around.
We average 22 mpg mixed driving in my XC90 and easily hit the 26 mpg highway @ 70 mph speeds, perfectly in line with its rated numbers. Would I rather Volvo have kept and improved the straight 6, of course, but the current engine lineup works for most buyers Volvo is marketing towards. Luckily we still have Audi and Mercedes putting 6's in their wagons if that's the most important thing to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,769 Posts
You're in denial. I'm currently driving an X5 35d and I've owned a Touareg diesel and a Jetta wagon TDI, the Volvo 4 cylinder engine is NOTHING like a diesel. Really?

You wish the V90 had 69 cu ft of space, its tiny. I don't care what car and driver says, here is the link to Volvo's own specs: https://www.volvocars.com/us/cars/new-models/v90/specs Look under Capacity and Cargo Capacity is 53.9 cu ft.
Really, the V60 makes the V90 a tough sell.

IIRC the V90 only beats the V60 slightly in rear legroom, but the V60 actually has the same, or even more cargo space. Probably because of its more traditionally-Volvo upright rear hatch. V90 is too sloped.

I personally prefer the V90 because T6 but the V60 is probably the much better buy
 
261 - 271 of 271 Posts
Top