Long distance rental review - 2020 Volvo V90 Cross Country

Messages
103
Location
MA
Thx to OP for review. Gas mileage is going to be relatively worse on the new V90 vs. an Old Swedish Steel 960 or 740 because the V90 is about 1000 lbs heavier and has all wheel drive. Plus the huge tires ( to carry all that weight) are a fuel mileage hit.

Just sticking a smaller engine in a car doesnt yield better gas mileage. My son‘s 2010 Volvo S80 with the 4.4L V8 gets about same MPG on highway as my 06 V70R with a 2.5L I5. Both are fast, heavy, have big tires, AWD etc. The price to pay for safety as they are stoutly built.
 

pezzy84

Thread starter
Messages
333
Location
Atlanta, GA
Thx to OP for review. Gas mileage is going to be relatively worse on the new V90 vs. an Old Swedish Steel 960 or 740 because the V90 is about 1000 lbs heavier and has all wheel drive. Plus the huge tires ( to carry all that weight) are a fuel mileage hit.

Just sticking a smaller engine in a car doesnt yield better gas mileage. My son‘s 2010 Volvo S80 with the 4.4L V8 gets about same MPG on highway as my 06 V70R with a 2.5L I5. Both are fast, heavy, have big tires, AWD etc. The price to pay for safety as they are stoutly built.

It was most definitely a heavy beast and threw its weight around, it took a bit of getting used to the extra weight and there were quite a few 'woah woah woah' moments when I was not anticipating the extra weight during braking and cornering versus my comparatively lightweight E-Golf or even the Sportwagen. When I viewed the specs and saw it weighs 4200 lbs empty I was honestly a bit surprised it could be that heavy, but just for comparison I see the MB E Wagon weighs nearly 4700 lbs. Talk about luxo barges - these two weigh as much as some 7 passenger SUV's.
 
Messages
266
Location
Canada, eh?
What many don't understand, is that Volvo does not employ the use of the 2.0 I4 for fuel economy reasons.
Instead, it's to reduce emissions and the amount of taxes owners of personal vehicles pay in Europe for larger displacement engines.

Volvos with lackluster fuel economy are nothing new. We've had several newer (at the time) Volvo's with inline 4's back in the 70's and 80's in my family.
When compared to Honda's also with 4 cyl engines, the Volvo's consumption was more similar to V8's from the big three...it's just how they are designed.
 
Last edited:
Messages
18,168
Location
NH
When compared to Honda's also with 4 cyl engines, the Volvo's consumption was more similar to V8's from the big three...it's just how they are designed.
How they are designed? Not sure if I buy that. How they react when asked to do so much? Heavy car that isn't so slippery in the wind?

Otherwise that says they can't design an efficient engine, which I find hard in this day and age. Maybe Honda (and others) just know more tricks, or are willing to play more tricks, tricks that have side effects that Volvo isn't interested in (see current thread about not charging batteries to max, uber thin sheet metal, who knows what else).
 
Messages
266
Location
Canada, eh?
How they are designed? Not sure if I buy that. How they react when asked to do so much? Heavy car that isn't so slippery in the wind?

Otherwise that says they can't design an efficient engine, which I find hard in this day and age. Maybe Honda (and others) just know more tricks, or are willing to play more tricks, tricks that have side effects that Volvo isn't interested in (see current thread about not charging batteries to max, uber thin sheet metal, who knows what else).
They are designed with turbo and supercharged 4 cyl engines, prior to that it was NA 4 cyl engines that were also not designed for fuel efficiency.....not sure what you are asking here :unsure:

Maybe you should ask Volvo why they can't make an efficient 4 cyl engine similar to the rest of the auto industry.
I'd be very interested (as I'm sure many others in who've replied to this thread) to hear your finings :sneaky:
 
Messages
18,168
Location
NH
They are designed with turbo and supercharged 4 cyl engines, prior to that it was NA 4 cyl engines that were also not designed for fuel efficiency.....not sure what you are asking here :unsure:

Maybe you should ask Volvo why they can't make an efficient 4 cyl engine similar to the rest of the auto industry.
I'd be very interested (as I'm sure many others in who've replied to this thread) to hear your finings :sneaky:
Usually the conversion of gasoline to horsepower seems to not vary too much from engine to engine. But a heavier vehicle with more sticky tires and worse air drag is going to have worse mpg. That is my point. The engines are doing more work (seeing more load) and thus burning more gas.
 
Messages
266
Location
Canada, eh?
Usually the conversion of gasoline to horsepower seems to not vary too much from engine to engine. But a heavier vehicle with more sticky tires and worse air drag is going to have worse mpg. That is my point. The engines are doing more work (seeing more load) and thus burning more gas.
:cool:
 
Messages
103
Location
MA
It was most definitely a heavy beast and threw its weight around, it took a bit of getting used to the extra weight and there were quite a few 'woah woah woah' moments when I was not anticipating the extra weight during braking and cornering versus my comparatively lightweight E-Golf or even the Sportwagen. When I viewed the specs and saw it weighs 4200 lbs empty I was honestly a bit surprised it could be that heavy, but just for comparison I see the MB E Wagon weighs nearly 4700 lbs. Talk about luxo barges - these two weigh as much as some 7 passenger SUV's.
I do the ‘woah woah woah’ thing when i switch from driving my lowered Volvo V70R to driving our ‘06 Honda Odyssey or especially the ‘05 Buick Lesabre. A lot louder WOAH WOAH WOAH in the Buick!

Gearing and weight are huge drivers of MPG. I had an ‘85 Toyota MR2 (1.6 L high output 4 cylinder) in a tiny mid-engine car. One would think that would get you upper 30’s or lower 40‘s for MPG. Nope. The MR2 got 30 MPG no matter how it was driven. The gearing on the highway had the engine at around 4000 rpm in 5th gear at “higher” highway speeds IIRC. So that was not helping gas mileage any. It was lightweight, which explains the around town 30 MPG. You could get a couple people to pick up each end of the car and parallel park it manually. Of course, the doors felt and sounded like recycled aluminum soda cans. Volvo doors feel and sound like bank vault doors. There’s a big difference.

Wondering if the non-XC, which is presumably lower, would handle better.
 
Messages
116
How they are designed? Not sure if I buy that. How they react when asked to do so much? Heavy car that isn't so slippery in the wind?

Otherwise that says they can't design an efficient engine, which I find hard in this day and age.

The 90's 940 non turbo 2.3 liter with a four speed automatic would easily pull 32-33 mpg on the highway.

I've owned Volvo turbo's from 1981-2009 and it's a lot harder to get good mileage over a non turbo version.

The S90's coefficient of drag runs between .26-.28 depending on the version of the car. That is a very slippery car for it's size.

There is no reason why they couldn't get that car into the mid thirties. Smaller engines are not always better for fuel mileage. Example Toyota found in the Prius that the 1.8 liter is much more efficient than the 1.5 liter.
 
Messages
580
Location
illinois, usa
And people wonder why I keep my 97 960. I can't believe that all that S90 got with a 2.0 liter 4 banger is 28 mpg. My old 87 740 Turbo wagon 2.3 liter inline four with a four speed automatic transmission before I modified it for fuel mileage got, 26.5 on the highway. That was with the cruise control set at 65 mph. The car had a .39 Cd and weighed around 3200 lbs

Two weeks ago I had my 960 out and I got 28.2 mpg with the cruise control set at 65 mph and the trip was a little over 500 miles. The car has a 2.9 liter, 24V, dual over head cam, inline six cylinder with a four speed automatic. This is a 3550 lb car with a .36 Cd.

Every Volvo I've ever owned got better than EPA on the highway from the 1981 242 Turbo-to my 1997 960. I looked at getting another Volvo in 2009 but opted for a Prius because the fuel mileage at the time was abysmal in the new Volvo's.

I will say the new S90's are really nice looking but check out how bad the depreciation is on those cars. I just priced one a 2018 S90 T6 Inscription AWD, 13K miles, $32K. MSRP on that car in 2018 was $58,600, that's a 45% hit on depriciation over three years? The techs I know at the dealer have told me to lease, never buy the new Volvo's because they are rolling nightmares in maintenance costs as they get older. I saw that with my own eyes or should I say heard when a service writer was quoting prices for work on a XC90 that was in for service two weeks ago. It needed brakes, a secondary battery that resided under the dash, plus a couple minor things like an oil change, updated software and the bill was close to $2,000. I was like WTF who would keep a car that it cost $1000 to do a brake job on all four wheels?

I am glad that you enjoy older Volvo's as much as I do. We have the same car plus my toy T5M. This summer hoping to do the head gasket on the 960 they tent to leak by the exterior cooling passages under the exhaust manifold. I was hoping to do the job last year but the virus came and nothing happen.

Keep an eye on your car for this problem.
 
Messages
116
I am glad that you enjoy older Volvo's as much as I do. We have the same car plus my toy T5M. This summer hoping to do the head gasket on the 960 they tent to leak by the exterior cooling passages under the exhaust manifold. I was hoping to do the job last year but the virus came and nothing happen.

Keep an eye on your car for this problem.
Here's a great source of maintenance information for the older 960's, S90's just in case you weren't aware of the website.
Volvo Club UK
 
Top