I was never a big fan of either of the turbo engines with which Volvo's SUV, the XC90, was originally offered. Then last year the turbocharged six was discontinued in favor of a new 311-horsepower 311-horsepower V8. And for 2007 the base engine, a turbo five, has been replaced by a 235-horsepower 3.2-liter inline six. Also new for 2007, the V8 is available in "Sport" form.

The competition hasn't been standing still. For 2007, both the Acura MDX and the BMW X5 have been totally redesigned. To see if the latest updates help the XC90 stay competitive, I took both the 3.2 and V8 Sport for a test drive.

Styling

Unlike the overly cladded XC70, the XC90 is an attractive vehicle, looking at once SUV rugged and luxury car elegant. In it Volvo’s current design language has translated very well to SUV proportions. The proportions themselves deserve some of the credit. They’re pretty much perfect. Unlike with some car-based SUVs, the front overhang does not appear excessive. The Volvo also possesses a healthy amount of ground clearance, without which an SUV doesn't quite look like an SUV (and doesn't clear rocks like one theoretically should, either).

In the past I have noted that the XC90 needs at least the 17-inch wheels to look right, and I suggested that wheels larger than the available 18s would further improve the Volvo's appearance. Well, 17s are now standard on the regular XC90, with 18s optional, and the Sport has standard 19s.

The XC90 also strongly resembles other Volvos on the inside. Most of the controls are well laid out and intuitive to use—the radio being the major exception. Nothing fancy, just moderately luxurious functionality in the Scandinavian idiom.

As in other Volvos, materials quality is a step or two below Audi, BMW, and Lexus. When I reviewed the 2006 I noted that the interior would be upgraded for 2007. Well, a few details were changed, but the interior remains largely the same.

After driving the 3.2, I dropped by the Acura dealer to refresh my memory of the MDX, and see how the two compare. The Acura interior strives to be more stylish, even trendy, with many sweeping curves and metallic accents. In comparison, the XC90's interior is much less flashy, but also less plasticky. It seems higher in quality than the Acura interior--as it should given the higher price--but also less interesting.

Accommodations

As noted above, the XC90 stands well off the ground, and the seats are similarly positioned at a conventional SUV height. The BMW X5 is similarly packaged, but the seat in the Acura MDX sits a few inches lower. One benefit of the high seating position is a commanding view with excellent visibility over the hood and out the side windows. The Acura, on the other hand, feels sportier and more car-like.

The view rearward is much less happy when both rows of seats are up. Three rows of tall headrests block most of the view out of the rear window. The XC90 desperately needs a rear-view camera like the ones offered by many competitors.

Front seat comfort is a Volvo strength, and neither XC90 disappoints in this area. The regular XC90's driver’s seat doesn’t cup you quite as much as that in the S60/V70, but it’s still very supportive and comfortable. The Sport's sport buckets have larger bolsters, and these do provide substantially more lateral support. I'd personally like tighter spacing between the bolsters, but of course these seats must be designed to also hold people much larger than I am.

The second row slides fore-and-aft a few inches in three sections split 40/20/40. It can also be reclined. In its rearmost position there is a decent amount of legroom, but nothing to write home about. If the front seats are far back and the second row is not, then adults will be a bit cramped. Shoulder room is just adequate for three-across seating, but the X5 and especially the MDX have wider cabins. Compared to those two, the XC90 feels compact.

The sunroof is a conventional, standard-size unit. More and more SUVs are taking advantage of their large roofs to fit extra-large sunroofs. One would be welcome here.

The XC90 is not without unique features, though, as Volvo offers a twin-screen entertainment system. It'll cost you two grand, though.

The third row is roomier than that in the X5 but tighter than that in the MDX. Both headroom and legroom are at best marginal for adults. To get any sort of legroom back there the second row cannot be all the way back. Access is not easy.

With the third row up, cargo space is limited. The second and third rows can be folded to form a flat load floor. Folding the seats, especially those in the third row, requires many steps, all of them manual. Among them, the headrests must be flopped forward. But at least there is no need to remove the things, unlike in some other SUVs. Cargo volume with both rows folded is an excellent 85 cubic feet. An Acura MDX offers 79 cubic feet, and a BMW X5 only 75. However, much of this advantage derives from the Volvo's relatively tall height.

The XC90 for reasons I cannot fathom uses a two-piece tailgate. The top part is so much larger than the approximately six-inch tall bottom part that I do not understand why Volvo bothered with the additional complexity and cost of two pieces. As with other two-piece tailgates, the top part must be raised first.

On the Road

My first impression of the V8 when I first drove it last year was that it isn't that peppy. But then I discovered that the accelerator has a longer travel than most. My right foot soon learned to dig deeper to find a strong, responsive engine. The six-speed automatic's short first and second gears and tight spacing between ratios help get the engine into its power band and keep it there.

Acceleration still isn't breathtaking--a BMW X5 4.8i feels much quicker--but it's quicker than an Acura MDX and well beyond sufficient. Once over 4,000 RPM the V8 emits a sonorous growl that I found both pleasing and in-character for a premium SUV. A few times I took the engine to the redline just to listen to its song. Despite the 60-degree angle between cylinder banks, ideal for a V6 but odd for a V8, the new engine feels smooth. Needless to say, this powertrain is a huge improvement over the old six-cylinder turbo / four-speed automatic combo.

The new 3.2-liter inline six also sings a pleasantly lusty song when pushed, especially at higher rpm. Which is a good thing, because this engine needs a lot of revs to move the heavy, 4,600-pound SUV. In other words, the XC90 3.2 is sloooow in a way few vehicles are these days. As with many recent Ford engines, the low end and midrange are lacking. And the power peak, with 235 horsepower, isn't peaky enough. Check out the competition's sixes...

Acura MDX: 300 horsepower
Audi Q7: 280 horsepower
BMW X5: 260 horsepower
Cadillac SRX: 260 horsepower
Mercedes ML: 268 horsepower
VW Touareg: 276 horsepower

Sorry, but in this crowd 235 horsepower doesn't even come close to cutting it. The Volvo V8 similarly lags many competitive V8s. Especially given the XC90's pricing it needs more power.

If the 3.2 were an old engine more recently upstaged by newer competitors, that would be bad enough. But it's a brand new engine, and should have had at least another thirty horses.

Volvo introduced a faster-reacting all-wheel-drive system with the V8 back in 2005, and has now fitted this system with both engines. During my test drives I failed to notice any obvious power shift from the front to the rear wheels, or the trace of torque steer I noted the last time around. The XC90 with this system also understeers less when powering through a turn. So the new system works as advertised.

For an SUV the XC90’s brakes are powerful, though brake feel was a bit mushy. Once again I did not experience the touchiness I have in some other Volvos.

The steering remains overly light at low speeds, and feedback remains in short supply, but by paying especially close attention to my fingertips I could get a hint of what the front tires were up to. Compared to earlier XC90s, the 3.2 seemed to lean less in hard turns, and lacked the rear-end sway in quick transitions that I warned about a few years back. The chassis remains squishier and less responsive than either the X5's or the MDX', though. There's still a touch of slack and delay in the steering and suspension. On the other hand, the narrower cabin does lend the XC90 a more agile feel in relatively casual driving; it feels less bulky than wider competitors.

The Sport's suspension is stiffer, but not tremendously so. So it reduces the inherent squishiness of the XC90's suspension, but does not eliminate it. And the steering remains generally numb.

The payoff for the XC90 3.2's less sporting handling relative to an X5 or FX is a much more compliant ride. A luxury sedan is much better still, but for an SUV the Volvo seems to ride well. It probably helps that with the standard wheels the tires are not remotely low profile, with an aspect ratio of 65. Also to its credit, the XC90's ride is composed; it possesses none of the side-to-side or fore-aft rocking that plagues some loosely suspended SUVs, especially those based on trucks.

With a stiffer suspension and 50-series tires, the XC90 doesn't fare so well. My sense while driving it was that these alterations degraded the ride quality more than they improved the handling. While the ride remains far from punishing, it is substantially busier than that of the 3.2, and the tires react loudly to many minor impacts.

Aside from tire thump in the Sport, noise levels are moderately low. The XC90 should be a comfortable vehicle to travel in aside from the roominess issues discussed above.

I did not attempt to take the XC90 off the pavement. Like most other car-based SUVs, this vehicle is not intended for serious off-roading. Based on the ground clearance and ride compliance, however, it should handle unpaved roads well.

Overall, the XC90 remains oriented towards comfort and safety. The Sport turns up the excitement a bit, but degrades the ride more, and does not match the MDX or X5 for handling ability.

Volvo XC90 Price Comparisons and Pricing

The XC90 was initially the only European SUV with a third row. Mercedes soon responded with a third row in the ML, but by then that vehicle was past its prime. So the Volvo still pretty much had a niche to itself.

However, over the past year Audi, BMW, and Mercedes have introduced new three-row SUVs, and Acura has redesigned the MDX. With such fierce competition, I'd expect significant discounts on the XC90.

Comparisons for the $36,680 3.2 AWD, base to base without incentives:

MDX: $2,000 more at MSRP before adjusting for feature differences, $2,500 less afterwards

X5 3.0si: $7,900 more before, $5,900 more afterwards

For the $50,000+ V8 Sport (standard third row, about $2,900 more than the regular V8):

MDX: $9,300 less before, $9,600 less afterwards

X5 4.8i with Sport Package: $8,800 more before, $8,000 more afterwards

So the Volvo ranges from a bit more to quite a bit more money than the Acura, depending on which trim is compared, while it's much less costly than the BMW. Even though it is much less than the BMW, the V8 Sport just doesn't seem worth nearly the $50,000+ price on its sticker.

Prices change frequently, and differences will vary based on feature level. To quickly generate these and other comparisons with the specific features you want, visit my Web site, www.truedelta.com. (It's the only site that provides true "apples-to-apples" price comparisons.)

TrueDelta's page for the Volvo XC90:

http://www.truedelta.com/models/XC90.php

Final Words

The new 3.2 underwhelmed me. If you want an XC90 able to get out of its own way, you want the V8. The EPA says that the six will get better fuel economy, but it has to work so hard that I suspect its real-world number will be little if any better than the V8's. Both engines significantly lag the competition in power output--the Acura's V6 makes nearly as much power as the Volvo's V8--which is odd since the V8 was new in 2005 and the 3.2 is new this year.

In the past I've felt that a firmer suspension could make the XC90 fun to drive. And while the regular V8 can be a bit of fun, with a more agile feel than its beamier competitors, the Sport doesn't further improve the handling enough to justify the degradation in ride quality. Apparently, "sport" just isn't what the XC90 is about.

So what is it about? Volvo used to have an advantage in safety, but most if not all major competitors have closed the gap in this area. The seats are comfortable, always a Volvo strength, but passenger room is marginal. In the end, the best thing the Volvo has going for it is a relatively low price for a European SUV. And generous factory-to-dealer incentives should make this price even lower by summer, if not sooner.

Last year I gave the V8 a four-star rating, partly because the V8 was such a large improvement over the T6. And part of me still really likes the XC90 on a conceptual level, especially with the large wheels and well-bolstered seats of the Sport. So why only two stars this time around? Two reasons. First, since I wrote that review some major competitors have been redesigned. Second, the 3.2 is slow, and the V8 Sport doesn't deliver enough extra performance to justify its high price and iffy ride quality. The regular V8 I'd still give three stars to, and recommend.

A note on Volvo XC90 Reliability

I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.

Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy an XC90 3.2 or V8 rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Volvo XC90 3.2 reliability comparisons.

Before I can report results, I need data on all cars--not just the XC90--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. For non-participants, this access will cost $24.95.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

If you're a member, and you want to receive an email when I post a new review, click here.

Some of my reviews of related vehicles:
Acura MDX review
Audi Q7 review
BMW X5 review
Land Rover LR3 review
Mercedes GL450 review
Volvo XC90 review (turbo engine)