6 ms·

Volvo Bets Its Future on Small, Turbocharged Engines

33 points by davidiach 12y ago

DTV 12y ago
Volvo isn't the only one. One of the new Ford Mustangs is running a 2.3L turbo 4-cyl. Some Mustang fans complain because they like that classic V8 rumble but I don't think the people buying Volvos are too worried about showing off at the each red light.
- angkec 12y ago
  But Volvo has a third turbo that powers the other two turbos. The mustang's turbo is probably a conventional turbo on a 4 cylinder.
  - ufmace 12y ago
    It sounds like they actually have a conventional supercharger in addition to 2 turbochargers. It'll probably be tricky to keep it all under control, but it could result in impressive performance.
    - jedmeyers 12y ago
      It does not sound like a 'conventional' supercharger since it is not powered by the engine's crankshaft, but rather by electricity.
      - bradleyland 12y ago
        The article is kind of confusing. At one point, they say: "The 2016 XC90 (on sale early next year) is the first of this new generation of Volvos. It’s powered by a 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine with a turbocharger and a supercharger. (While the turbo works best when the engine’s already going, a supercharger forces in air with power generated by the engine itself, so increased boost is available from idle.) The supercharger runs from idle to 3,500 RPM. Above that, an integrated clutch disengages the supercharger, allowing the turbocharger to take over." Based ont his paragraph, it sounds like a traditional supercharger that works up to 3,500 RPM. Later on though, we get this bit: "We’ve seen plenty of twin-turbos before. Volvo’s innovation is adding a third—third!—turbo. But this one doesn’t charge the engine. It charges the other turbos. It’s electric, hence the name “e-booster,” and sends air into the two conventional turbos to improve their performance below 3,300 RPM, filling out the torque curve and eliminating that pesky lag problem." Now we have an e-booster referred to as a third turbo, which runs up to 3,300 RPM. So, the confusion is warranted. The article isn't entirely clear on whether these are two engine options, or a single engine with inconsistent details.
        chockablock 12y ago
        The article discusses 2 different engine designs: -A prototype with 2 conventional turbos and a third electric "e-booster" to help spool them up. This one is "five to 10 years" away. -A 2.0L 4-cylinder 'Drive-E' engine coming to market on the 2016 XC90 that has a turbo- and a supercharger (but no electric fan).
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- rjsw 12y ago
  Ford have several turbocharged engines [1], my next car will probably have one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine
- bradleyland 12y ago
  Yeah, my initial reaction was "name an auto manufacturer who isn't betting its future on small, turbocharged engines. It's pretty much a necessity, and much to the lament of automobile enthusiasts everywhere (who prefer a high-revving, naturally-aspirated engine). Volvo does appear to be distinguishing themselves though. Namely in the fact that they're coming to market with an e-booster (electric turbo). There are plenty of dual-inlet turbocharged engines on the market, and Mercedes pushed the envelope with their M133 engine found in their performance oriented version of the CLA, but no one, that I'm aware of, has brought an e-booster to market. There was quite a bit of speculation that BMW would use one on their latest M3, but instead they went with a dual-turbo setup and some cool electronic wastegate management software that improves spool-up time. The combo supercharger/turbochargers setup is crazy exciting though. The last car I can remember with that kind of setup was Lancia's group B rallye submission, the Delta S4. That car made, ostensibly, 480 HP from about 1.8L. In reality, the output was more in the area of 550 HP, and legend has it that engineers pushed the powerplant close to 1000 HP. Every auto manufacturer is staring down a future of emissions and fuel economy standards that are going to require some fundamental shifts in the way cars are built and powered. Most manufacturers are moving in the direction of hybrid technology. BMW is betting the farm on mass-produced carbon fiber technology. Everyone has a strategy, and most involve lower displacement, forced-induction engines, often coupled with hybrid drivetrain components.
  - rodgerd 12y ago
    > It's pretty much a necessity, and much to the lament of automobile enthusiasts everywhere (who prefer a high-revving, naturally-aspirated engine). Except for all the auto enthusiasts that Audi (ur-Quattro and almost all their performance cars since), Toyota (Celica GT-R, Supra), Nissan (Skyline GT-R), Subaru (pretty much everything), court, or who remember the era of 1000 HP Formula 1 cars fondly. But yeah, I guess all automotive enthusiasts.
    - bradleyland 12y ago
      Uh, I never said "all", I said automobile enthusiasts, then added the qualification of the ones who prefer N/A engines using parenthesis. Although, I see that my wording could be taken both ways. I didn't mean for the word everywhere to mean "all", I just mean that there are enthusiasts in just about every circle of automobile culture who prefer N/A motors. Just look at all the "all motor" import tuners. There's an "all motor" group in every sub-group.
ufmace 12y ago
I'm not sure offhand how well this will work, but it is good to see real innovation in car engines, in a time when most manufacturers seem content to punch out the same stuff with a few percent more efficiency.
- tormeh 12y ago
  This isn't about energy per unit of fuel, but max output per unit of engine weight. It's more exciting, but less important, really. Anyway, I really hope every car manufacturer out there has CAD drawings and plans ready for the moment we get a breakthrough in battery technology. Teslas are nice, but the batteries are holding them back. Once they get good batteries, though, they will walk over every other kind of car. The BMW i3 is sad but it's the closest competitor.
  - tailrecursion 12y ago
    Yes. Turbos make sense but if Volvo is betting on them they are only joining VW, BMW, and Subaru. Your remark about the i3 is due to its range? Otherwise it is a good car. Tesla's products are very attractive partly because of Tesla's commitment to supercharger networks (which are no cost to use) and other recharging infrastructure. BMW's story seems weak by comparison but their EVs are good so far.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      They just look like BMW took some inspiration from Fisher-Price. It screams "we don't take this car seriously". Teslas look good, like they're /meant to sell/ rather than just making an eco-statement. It might be a nice car in the practical sense but it's not a serious entry in the EV space. The only electric cars that matter is Tesla Model S and Nissan Leaf, period.
      - mikestew 12y ago
        It's the "takes this car seriously" part that matters a lot. I've seen one or two i3s around the Seattle area, but Teslas and Nissan Leafs fill the roads around here, so there's bound to be a few BMW early adopters. Is the i3 going to sell in Indianapolis, though? I already have a Nissan Leaf. But if I were to have never owned an electric car and were to go buy one today, it'd be a Leaf or a Tesla. Why? Because I've already bought a lifetime of half-assed, soon-to-be-unsupported tech. Those items were typically less than $1000 (though I've purchased some duds that were more pricey). If I'm dropping $30K or more, it's for damned sure going to be from a company that I'm confident is in it for the long haul (and not, as you say, making an "eco-statement"). Right now Nissan and Tesla are the only ones that have convinced me that they fit that requirement.
nether 12y ago
A three-stage compressor for reciprocating engines. The "turbo lag" is why we don't use turbines in cars.
- lafar6502 12y ago
  The lag is there because turbines are powered by exhaust gases and theres no increase in exhaust without increase in intake, and the turbine is responsible for increasing the air intake but it can't because there's not enough exhaust - a hen and egg problem... But Volvo did something interesting - they used an electric turbine that doesn't have to wait for the exhaust to increase, it can be spinned almost instantly when you press the pedal, so there should be no lag
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Turbo lag is a non-problem with a turbo that is sized to match the engine. Too small of a turbo hits peak flow too early, cutting the peak power Too large of a turbo doesn't get enough exhaust flow to develop boost until 4000RPM or higher A properly sized turbo begins to develop boost between 2000-3000RPM, which is just right for most cars. When you are just puttering around town you are not developing boost, but the steep power curve of boost is only a moment away.
fezz 12y ago
No doubt a result of all those Saab engineers finally infecting Volvo.
zzzeek 12y ago
Having driven a Tesla, IMO if this engine still burns fossil fuels, it has no future (edit, folks, where "future" is the "5 to 10 years" noted in this article). Tesla should be proving that the combustion engine [will within the next 5-10 years, note this article is titled "Volvo bets its future"] no longer have a legitimate reason to exist for passenger cars.
- TheCapn 12y ago
  Have Tesla engines been proven to be 100% reliable in extreme cold conditions like certain parts of Canada and the rest of the world?
  - jonknee 12y ago
    Considering how well they're selling in Norway, I'd say so.
  - larsmak 12y ago
    They do sell very well here in Norway at least - and is said to behave decent during the winter: http://www.klikk.no/motor/bil/biltester/article896042.ece http://www.klikk.no/motor/bil/biltester/article896042.ece
    - stephencanon 12y ago
      Canada and the Northern US have much, much colder winters than the [densely populated parts of] Norway.
- cones688 12y ago
  > engine still burns fossil fuels It does, it's just centralised and called a power station... it's incredibly naive to think a Telsa isn't contributing to burning fossil fuels - it's just not in front of your face. Also I am not sure whether any modern power grid in the world could cope if even 10% of cars became PHEV, imagine the spike when everyone got home and plugged in their car - would be like a "TV Pickup[0]" on steriods, they usually cover these with short term solutions such as hydro pump but this wouldn't run the time it takes to charge a car. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup
incision 12y ago
It seems an odd choice to say three turbochargers in an article that references superchargers when it reads as an electric supercharger plus sequential turbos. Personally, I'd much rather see advancement / acceptance of self-drivers even if limited to highways than incremental improvements to traditional cars. The main, perhaps only reason I really care about response and acceleration is the generally selfish, adversarial behavior of human drivers. The contrast between the same daily drive in a 4-cyl compact and torquey V8 is stark. In the former, every lane change has to come with permission - that drivers are often unwilling to give. In the latter, I'm in complete control. I'd much rather the third possibility - to know we're all on autopilot gliding along at a safe, predictable rate to our destinations.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  It isn't all about the commute. There's also towing, high mountain passes, and plain fun to consider. It's amazing how gutless my old 140hp/150lb-ft wagon was at 10,000ft. Foot to the floor, 3rd gear, barely maintaining speed.
  - undersuit 12y ago
    The plain fun aspect isn't a reason to keep the human driven automobile around as a legal activity on public roads. We segregate fun from business and competition for a number of activities. We don't go hunting with fully automatic weapons, why do people get to engage in fun with ridiculously overpowered vehicles when I'm in a more practical commuting vehicle right next to them driving to work?
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      I didn't say anything like that. Only that "fun" is one of the reasons for more than the absolute bare minimum of engine power.
    - MrDom 12y ago
      > why do people get to engage in fun with ridiculously overpowered vehicles when I'm in a more practical commuting vehicle right next to them driving to work? Why do people get to tell me what I can and can't drive? Lots of people manage to drive safely on public roads with cars far far more powerful than they technically need. > We don't go hunting with fully automatic weapons Then you're clearly not having as much fun as you could be ;)
frederickf 12y ago
My current ride is a 1992 Volvo 740 Wagon. It only has 12 volts, 1 turbo, and 192,000 miles. In another twenty years from now maybe I'll upgrade to one of these fancy 3 turbo, 24 volts cars, but only if my current Volvo has stopped running ;)
jeffhodsdon 12y ago
Kawasaki has their 300hp turbo 4 cylinder coming too. Super similar http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/2015-Ninja-H2R http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/2015-Ninja-H2R
makhanko 12y ago
I own two Volvos and I can tell you that with the new insanely complicated engines no mechanic will touch the car. You will be stuck servicing it at Volvo dealership at lawyers hourly rates. And this will be aggravated by the fact that with more moving parts the car will break more often. Plus the cost of the new engine is much higher. The base price of the 2016 XC90 with the new engine is well above what the previous model cost. The fuel efficiency savings are unlikely to come close to offsetting the increased cost of ownership. It seems that Volvo adopted the "differentiation" strategy of some hardware manufacturers - needlessly boosting the specs which looks good on paper but doesn't do squat for the end user. In my opinion it's move in the wrong direction for Volvo that used be known for it's simplicity.
- nextw33k 12y ago
  I would disagree with you there. Yes there is something to be said for simplicity, however advancement often comes with complexity. I think the engineering model is going to have to take into account the new economics of selling cars. Last month I brought a new BMW, I negotiated a 5 year servicing deal which means I am only liable for tires, brake pads and possibly the clutch if it is burnt out but not if there is a mechanical fault. BMW have a vested interest in making cars that can last for as long as possible. We should all be considering how we can place the liability of equipment makers back on the manufacturers. We'll end up with a less throw away society.
- robodale 12y ago
  I own a twin-turbo BMW. The performance is great, but one day those turbos will go out. I hope that is the next owner's problem.
peterjs 12y ago
I have to admit that it comes close to Volvo's best achievement today. But not quite. I've managed to cram a 2m (6.6 ft) ladder into my 15 years old S40. Which makes me even more fond of it than ever before. It has no touch screens - just terrific hardware controls. No fancy electronics, manual transmission, a 2.0l petrol engine without turbos (not even one). All this makes me believe that this incredibly sleek and calm vehicle has its best days ahead of it! I got a bit carried away, still, that durability and utility of these older Volvos... There is something refined about them even when carrying ladders around.

33 points by davidiach 12y ago

DTV 12y ago

Volvo isn't the only one. One of the new Ford Mustangs is running a 2.3L turbo 4-cyl. Some Mustang fans complain because they like that classic V8 rumble but I don't think the people buying Volvos are too worried about showing off at the each red light.

angkec 12y ago
But Volvo has a third turbo that powers the other two turbos. The mustang's turbo is probably a conventional turbo on a 4 cylinder.
- ufmace 12y ago
  It sounds like they actually have a conventional supercharger in addition to 2 turbochargers. It'll probably be tricky to keep it all under control, but it could result in impressive performance.
  - jedmeyers 12y ago
    It does not sound like a 'conventional' supercharger since it is not powered by the engine's crankshaft, but rather by electricity.
    - bradleyland 12y ago
      The article is kind of confusing. At one point, they say: "The 2016 XC90 (on sale early next year) is the first of this new generation of Volvos. It’s powered by a 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine with a turbocharger and a supercharger. (While the turbo works best when the engine’s already going, a supercharger forces in air with power generated by the engine itself, so increased boost is available from idle.) The supercharger runs from idle to 3,500 RPM. Above that, an integrated clutch disengages the supercharger, allowing the turbocharger to take over." Based ont his paragraph, it sounds like a traditional supercharger that works up to 3,500 RPM. Later on though, we get this bit: "We’ve seen plenty of twin-turbos before. Volvo’s innovation is adding a third—third!—turbo. But this one doesn’t charge the engine. It charges the other turbos. It’s electric, hence the name “e-booster,” and sends air into the two conventional turbos to improve their performance below 3,300 RPM, filling out the torque curve and eliminating that pesky lag problem." Now we have an e-booster referred to as a third turbo, which runs up to 3,300 RPM. So, the confusion is warranted. The article isn't entirely clear on whether these are two engine options, or a single engine with inconsistent details.
      - chockablock 12y ago
        The article discusses 2 different engine designs: -A prototype with 2 conventional turbos and a third electric "e-booster" to help spool them up. This one is "five to 10 years" away. -A 2.0L 4-cylinder 'Drive-E' engine coming to market on the 2016 XC90 that has a turbo- and a supercharger (but no electric fan).
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
rjsw 12y ago
Ford have several turbocharged engines [1], my next car will probably have one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine
bradleyland 12y ago
Yeah, my initial reaction was "name an auto manufacturer who isn't betting its future on small, turbocharged engines. It's pretty much a necessity, and much to the lament of automobile enthusiasts everywhere (who prefer a high-revving, naturally-aspirated engine). Volvo does appear to be distinguishing themselves though. Namely in the fact that they're coming to market with an e-booster (electric turbo). There are plenty of dual-inlet turbocharged engines on the market, and Mercedes pushed the envelope with their M133 engine found in their performance oriented version of the CLA, but no one, that I'm aware of, has brought an e-booster to market. There was quite a bit of speculation that BMW would use one on their latest M3, but instead they went with a dual-turbo setup and some cool electronic wastegate management software that improves spool-up time. The combo supercharger/turbochargers setup is crazy exciting though. The last car I can remember with that kind of setup was Lancia's group B rallye submission, the Delta S4. That car made, ostensibly, 480 HP from about 1.8L. In reality, the output was more in the area of 550 HP, and legend has it that engineers pushed the powerplant close to 1000 HP. Every auto manufacturer is staring down a future of emissions and fuel economy standards that are going to require some fundamental shifts in the way cars are built and powered. Most manufacturers are moving in the direction of hybrid technology. BMW is betting the farm on mass-produced carbon fiber technology. Everyone has a strategy, and most involve lower displacement, forced-induction engines, often coupled with hybrid drivetrain components.
- rodgerd 12y ago
  > It's pretty much a necessity, and much to the lament of automobile enthusiasts everywhere (who prefer a high-revving, naturally-aspirated engine). Except for all the auto enthusiasts that Audi (ur-Quattro and almost all their performance cars since), Toyota (Celica GT-R, Supra), Nissan (Skyline GT-R), Subaru (pretty much everything), court, or who remember the era of 1000 HP Formula 1 cars fondly. But yeah, I guess all automotive enthusiasts.
  - bradleyland 12y ago
    Uh, I never said "all", I said automobile enthusiasts, then added the qualification of the ones who prefer N/A engines using parenthesis. Although, I see that my wording could be taken both ways. I didn't mean for the word everywhere to mean "all", I just mean that there are enthusiasts in just about every circle of automobile culture who prefer N/A motors. Just look at all the "all motor" import tuners. There's an "all motor" group in every sub-group.

ufmace 12y ago

I'm not sure offhand how well this will work, but it is good to see real innovation in car engines, in a time when most manufacturers seem content to punch out the same stuff with a few percent more efficiency.

tormeh 12y ago
This isn't about energy per unit of fuel, but max output per unit of engine weight. It's more exciting, but less important, really. Anyway, I really hope every car manufacturer out there has CAD drawings and plans ready for the moment we get a breakthrough in battery technology. Teslas are nice, but the batteries are holding them back. Once they get good batteries, though, they will walk over every other kind of car. The BMW i3 is sad but it's the closest competitor.
- tailrecursion 12y ago
  Yes. Turbos make sense but if Volvo is betting on them they are only joining VW, BMW, and Subaru. Your remark about the i3 is due to its range? Otherwise it is a good car. Tesla's products are very attractive partly because of Tesla's commitment to supercharger networks (which are no cost to use) and other recharging infrastructure. BMW's story seems weak by comparison but their EVs are good so far.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    They just look like BMW took some inspiration from Fisher-Price. It screams "we don't take this car seriously". Teslas look good, like they're /meant to sell/ rather than just making an eco-statement. It might be a nice car in the practical sense but it's not a serious entry in the EV space. The only electric cars that matter is Tesla Model S and Nissan Leaf, period.
    - mikestew 12y ago
      It's the "takes this car seriously" part that matters a lot. I've seen one or two i3s around the Seattle area, but Teslas and Nissan Leafs fill the roads around here, so there's bound to be a few BMW early adopters. Is the i3 going to sell in Indianapolis, though? I already have a Nissan Leaf. But if I were to have never owned an electric car and were to go buy one today, it'd be a Leaf or a Tesla. Why? Because I've already bought a lifetime of half-assed, soon-to-be-unsupported tech. Those items were typically less than $1000 (though I've purchased some duds that were more pricey). If I'm dropping $30K or more, it's for damned sure going to be from a company that I'm confident is in it for the long haul (and not, as you say, making an "eco-statement"). Right now Nissan and Tesla are the only ones that have convinced me that they fit that requirement.

nether 12y ago

A three-stage compressor for reciprocating engines. The "turbo lag" is why we don't use turbines in cars.

lafar6502 12y ago
The lag is there because turbines are powered by exhaust gases and theres no increase in exhaust without increase in intake, and the turbine is responsible for increasing the air intake but it can't because there's not enough exhaust - a hen and egg problem... But Volvo did something interesting - they used an electric turbine that doesn't have to wait for the exhaust to increase, it can be spinned almost instantly when you press the pedal, so there should be no lag
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Turbo lag is a non-problem with a turbo that is sized to match the engine. Too small of a turbo hits peak flow too early, cutting the peak power Too large of a turbo doesn't get enough exhaust flow to develop boost until 4000RPM or higher A properly sized turbo begins to develop boost between 2000-3000RPM, which is just right for most cars. When you are just puttering around town you are not developing boost, but the steep power curve of boost is only a moment away.

fezz 12y ago

No doubt a result of all those Saab engineers finally infecting Volvo.

zzzeek 12y ago

Having driven a Tesla, IMO if this engine still burns fossil fuels, it has no future (edit, folks, where "future" is the "5 to 10 years" noted in this article). Tesla should be proving that the combustion engine [will within the next 5-10 years, note this article is titled "Volvo bets its future"] no longer have a legitimate reason to exist for passenger cars.

TheCapn 12y ago
Have Tesla engines been proven to be 100% reliable in extreme cold conditions like certain parts of Canada and the rest of the world?
- jonknee 12y ago
  Considering how well they're selling in Norway, I'd say so.
- larsmak 12y ago
  They do sell very well here in Norway at least - and is said to behave decent during the winter: http://www.klikk.no/motor/bil/biltester/article896042.ece http://www.klikk.no/motor/bil/biltester/article896042.ece
  - stephencanon 12y ago
    Canada and the Northern US have much, much colder winters than the [densely populated parts of] Norway.
cones688 12y ago
> engine still burns fossil fuels It does, it's just centralised and called a power station... it's incredibly naive to think a Telsa isn't contributing to burning fossil fuels - it's just not in front of your face. Also I am not sure whether any modern power grid in the world could cope if even 10% of cars became PHEV, imagine the spike when everyone got home and plugged in their car - would be like a "TV Pickup[0]" on steriods, they usually cover these with short term solutions such as hydro pump but this wouldn't run the time it takes to charge a car. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup

incision 12y ago

It seems an odd choice to say three turbochargers in an article that references superchargers when it reads as an electric supercharger plus sequential turbos. Personally, I'd much rather see advancement / acceptance of self-drivers even if limited to highways than incremental improvements to traditional cars. The main, perhaps only reason I really care about response and acceleration is the generally selfish, adversarial behavior of human drivers. The contrast between the same daily drive in a 4-cyl compact and torquey V8 is stark. In the former, every lane change has to come with permission - that drivers are often unwilling to give. In the latter, I'm in complete control. I'd much rather the third possibility - to know we're all on autopilot gliding along at a safe, predictable rate to our destinations.

sliverstorm 12y ago
It isn't all about the commute. There's also towing, high mountain passes, and plain fun to consider. It's amazing how gutless my old 140hp/150lb-ft wagon was at 10,000ft. Foot to the floor, 3rd gear, barely maintaining speed.
- undersuit 12y ago
  The plain fun aspect isn't a reason to keep the human driven automobile around as a legal activity on public roads. We segregate fun from business and competition for a number of activities. We don't go hunting with fully automatic weapons, why do people get to engage in fun with ridiculously overpowered vehicles when I'm in a more practical commuting vehicle right next to them driving to work?
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    I didn't say anything like that. Only that "fun" is one of the reasons for more than the absolute bare minimum of engine power.
  - MrDom 12y ago
    > why do people get to engage in fun with ridiculously overpowered vehicles when I'm in a more practical commuting vehicle right next to them driving to work? Why do people get to tell me what I can and can't drive? Lots of people manage to drive safely on public roads with cars far far more powerful than they technically need. > We don't go hunting with fully automatic weapons Then you're clearly not having as much fun as you could be ;)

frederickf 12y ago

My current ride is a 1992 Volvo 740 Wagon. It only has 12 volts, 1 turbo, and 192,000 miles. In another twenty years from now maybe I'll upgrade to one of these fancy 3 turbo, 24 volts cars, but only if my current Volvo has stopped running ;)

jeffhodsdon 12y ago

Kawasaki has their 300hp turbo 4 cylinder coming too. Super similar http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/2015-Ninja-H2R http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/2015-Ninja-H2R

makhanko 12y ago

I own two Volvos and I can tell you that with the new insanely complicated engines no mechanic will touch the car. You will be stuck servicing it at Volvo dealership at lawyers hourly rates. And this will be aggravated by the fact that with more moving parts the car will break more often. Plus the cost of the new engine is much higher. The base price of the 2016 XC90 with the new engine is well above what the previous model cost. The fuel efficiency savings are unlikely to come close to offsetting the increased cost of ownership. It seems that Volvo adopted the "differentiation" strategy of some hardware manufacturers - needlessly boosting the specs which looks good on paper but doesn't do squat for the end user. In my opinion it's move in the wrong direction for Volvo that used be known for it's simplicity.

nextw33k 12y ago
I would disagree with you there. Yes there is something to be said for simplicity, however advancement often comes with complexity. I think the engineering model is going to have to take into account the new economics of selling cars. Last month I brought a new BMW, I negotiated a 5 year servicing deal which means I am only liable for tires, brake pads and possibly the clutch if it is burnt out but not if there is a mechanical fault. BMW have a vested interest in making cars that can last for as long as possible. We should all be considering how we can place the liability of equipment makers back on the manufacturers. We'll end up with a less throw away society.
robodale 12y ago
I own a twin-turbo BMW. The performance is great, but one day those turbos will go out. I hope that is the next owner's problem.

peterjs 12y ago

I have to admit that it comes close to Volvo's best achievement today. But not quite. I've managed to cram a 2m (6.6 ft) ladder into my 15 years old S40. Which makes me even more fond of it than ever before. It has no touch screens - just terrific hardware controls. No fancy electronics, manual transmission, a 2.0l petrol engine without turbos (not even one). All this makes me believe that this incredibly sleek and calm vehicle has its best days ahead of it! I got a bit carried away, still, that durability and utility of these older Volvos... There is something refined about them even when carrying ladders around.