The Volvo brand is more closely associated with safety than any other. Many people buy SUVs because they are perceived as safe. It seems a natural fit. Yet Volvo did not get a true SUV to market until 2003. (The station wagon-based XC70 doesn’t count.) Did they use the time to make a better SUV? I took two XC90s for a test drive to find out, a 2003 T6 and a 2004 T5. I’ll concentrate on the former here, leaving the latter for my review of the 2004 2.5T. The two reviews differ little, so it should not be necessary to read them both.

Volvo XC90 Reliability

Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Volvo XC90 rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.

To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.

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 many car-based SUVs (especially the Honda Pilot and Acura MDX sibs) the front overhang does not appear excessive. (Hyperlinks lead to my reviews of these related vehicles.) It might have helped that no attempt was made to share a platform with a minivan, as was the case with the Honda products and GM’s Pontiac Aztek and Buick Rendezvous. Unlike with those GM products, the Volvo 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).

Three different size wheels are available on the XC90. The five-cylinder model comes standard with 16s, with 17s a $500 option. The six-cylinder comes standard with 17s, and 18s are part of a $1,900 package. With the 16s the XC90 doesn’t look quite right. It needs at least the 17s on it.

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 roughly equivalent to VW’s, and a step or two below Audi, BMW, and Lexus. In the loaded XC90 T6 I drove the interior actually seemed less rich than in other Volvos I’ve driven recently, but this might be partly due to the taupe color. Interior materials tend to look richer in dark colors, and that is definitely the case with the XC90.

Update: I just noticed in Car and Driver's review of the XC90 that they criticized the dark interior for being "oppressively drab" and "murky." So there are no easy choices here. Dark interiors tend to look higher in quality, but lighter ones are emotionally warmer.

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 many other car-based SUVs sit a few inches lower—most notably the Chrysler Pacifica and Infiniti FX (which are marketed as a new, not quite SUV type of vehicle). One benefit is a commanding driving position with excellent visibility over the hood and out the side windows.

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 currently offered by Lexus and Infiniti. And not just for backing up. I changed lanes with a great deal of caution and much signaling.

The first two rows of seats are typical Volvo: large and softer than the Germans. The 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 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 in the first and second row is similar to most midsize SUVs, with the notable exception of the Honda and Acura, which feel considerably roomier than the norm.

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 optional third row ($1,675) resembles those in the Honda/Acura sibs and Chrysler Pacifica. Both headroom and legroom are inadequate for adults. To get any sort of legroom back there the second row cannot be all the way back. Access is not easy.

To get a third row comfortable for adults in an SUV, a Ford Expedition (or the Lincoln variant) is the only way to go. It’s a much larger vehicle, but doesn’t handle badly for its size, and costs less than the Volvo.

With the third row in place, cargo space is limited. The second and third rows can be folded to form a flat load floor. Or at least this is what I was told. When I tried it, the third row ended up a few inches higher than the second. 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. I have seen two specifications for maximum cargo volume, 85 and 93 cubic feet, but have been unable to determine the difference between them. Even 85 is excellent. An Acura MDX offers 82 cubic feet, a Chrysler Pacifica offers 80, a Lexus RX 330 offers 85, and a BMW X5 only 54.

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.

A somewhat shocking omission from the options sheet: unlike just about any other SUV out there, a flat-panel display entertainment system is not available from the factory. Something else will have to be done to occupy rear seat occupants on trips.

On the Road

The extra cylinder of the T6 adds 60 horsepower, for a total of 268. Typical of Volvo’s turbocharged engines, the peak torque of 280 ft-lbs. is produced at a low, low 1800 RPM. (The torque peak of the T5 is even lower: 236 @ 1500 RPM.)

Underway the performance promised by the stats doesn’t pan out. I cannot recall so much torque at such a low RPM feeling so soft off the line. There are two reasons for this. With only four gears first cannot be as short as it needs to be. And, at 4,700 pounds, the T6 is one heavy vehicle. (Chrysler’s Pacifica similarly suffers on both counts.) Once underway, especially at highway speeds, performance is at least adequate. I had to dip deeply into the throttle often, which bodes poorly for fuel economy. (The trip computer during my admittedly atypical test drive reported MPG between six and seven.) Both off the line and underway, many competitors feels stronger. The BMW X5 with the base six-cylinder roughly matches the performance of the T6. In V8 guise the BMW blows the Volvo away. Ditto the Infiniti FX45. The Honda Pilot and Acura MDX also feel stronger, especially at tip-in.

The T6 has one major disadvantage over the T5 that squanders a significant portion of its power advantage: its four-speed automatic has one less gear. As a result, it has a taller first gear, hampering acceleration from a stop. The T6 also weighs about 200 pounds more than the base all-wheel-drive T5. Going with a front-wheel-drive T5 can shave another 150 pounds, but likely results in torque steer judging from other front-wheel-drive Volvos.

I briefly drove a 2004 T5 to evaluate how much quicker the T6 feels. As I suspected, off the line the T5 might actually feel a bit stronger. At highway speeds, however, the T6 clearly has more passing power. My impression that there is not a great deal of difference between the two is confirmed by Consumer Guide, which reports a 8.8 0-60 time for the T6 vs. a 9.2 time for the T5. The six does have a clear advantage in one area: though hardly jewel-like, it sounds much more refined under hard acceleration. Five-cylinder engines inherently sound coarse.

Both engines suffer from an issue endemic to turbocharging. With a turbo there is always a lag before the boost kicks in, and afterwards it is possible to get more thrust than you wanted. In the XC90 T6 I experienced some of this non-linear power delivery, but I’ve experienced much worse. The use of two small turbos with the six instead of one larger one minimizes boost lag. The T5 engine uses a single turbo, but judging from its lower horsepower per liter this turbo is called on to produce less boost than with the T6 or the five-cylinder turbos in some other Volvo models. As a result, there is more lag than with the T6 but less than with the more powerful five-cylinder Volvos. Even though boost lag in both XC90s was less than with the average turbo, larger, normally aspirated engines similar to those offered by the competition would be better.

Volvo and Saab have both been longstanding proponents of turbocharging because of the fuel economy benefits, but the T6 does as badly in this area as GM’s similarly hefty, 4.2-liter-powered midsize SUVs, with EPA ratings of 15/20. The T5 does significantly better according to the EPA: 18/24. I suspect the five-speed automatic helps as much as the smaller displacement of the engine.

I was similarly underwhelmed by the XC90’s handling. Despite my criticism of the Volvo V70's handling in a previous review, I figured that this might be a performance-oriented SUV in the vein of the BMW X5. It's European, after all. And it even looks a bit like the X5--just longer.

Well, the XC90 is not a sport sedan in SUV garb. It's a competent handler, no better, no worse. In normal suburban driving the responsiveness of the steering and composure of the suspension inspire confidence. Aside from the rear visibility issue I felt no trepidation driving this most massive of Volvos through traffic.

Rather, the XC90's handling falls short when it is asked to entertain. Although the steering possessed sufficient weighting at highway speeds, at lower speeds it's too light, recalling a conventional SUV. Volvo steering systems tend to leave me wanting more feedback, and this one was no exception. Even moderately hard acceleration generated a stiffness to the steering that eliminated much of the feel it did have--torque steer's little brother. But at least there was no torque steer, as there should not be in an all-wheel-drive vehicle.

The amount of lean in turns would be unacceptable in a sport sedan. The BMW and Infiniti lean much less, while the Acura and Chrysler also have an advantage here. Some truck-based SUVs lean more in the Volvo, but I expected better from a European manufacturer. The automatically adjusting shocks used in the R versions of the S60 and V70 could help.

Even considering this as a comfort-oriented SUV I did encounter one unpleasant surprise. In quick lane changes (once taking a number of seconds to make sure the coast was clear—see above on rear visibility) the XC90’s height and comfort-oriented suspension combined to produce some rear-end sway. Even after the rest of the vehicle had completed the lane change, the rear end wanted to keep going. I never though it actually would, but the resulting momentary bobble was unexpected in this sort of vehicle. I’ve experienced this in conventional SUVs before, but not in a car-based SUV. I would have no joy hustling the XC90 down a twisty road as a result. In typical suburban driving, though, this bobble will not be a factor.

Volvo has fitted its SUV with a stability control program designed to prevent not only oversteer but rollovers as well. With other SUVs the image of safety is partly illusory, as their high center of gravity makes them more likely to roll. By counteracting this tendency, Volvo can claim to offer a level of safety consonant with the SUV’s image. In tight turns taken quickly I did feel the stability control kick in a few times. It could have been less obtrusive, and I felt that in some cases it kicked in much earlier than it needed to—I felt I was nowhere near spinning the XC90, much less rolling it. Still, a good feature to have in this sort of vehicle.

For an SUV the XC90’s brakes were quite powerful, though brake feel was a bit mushy. At least I did not experience any of the excessive touchiness I have in some other Volvos.

The payoff for the XC90’s less sporting handling relative to an X5 or FX is a much more compliant ride. (Acura, however, combines somewhat better handling with roughly equivalent ride quality.) The roads I test drove the XC90 on were fairly smooth (especially for Michigan roads), so I could not fully evaluate ride quality. But I was able to tell that it rode much better than those performance-oriented SUVs. For one thing, I could not feel every last wrinkle in the pavement. A luxury sedan is much better still, but for an SUV the Volvo seems to ride well. It probably helps that even with the largest wheels the tires are not low profile, with an aspect ratio of 60. Also to its credit, the XC90’s ride was composed; it possessed none of the side-to-side or fore-aft rocking that plagues some loosely suspended SUVs, especially those based on trucks.

Noise levels were moderately low. The XC90 should be a comfortable vehicle to travel in aside from the seating 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 is oriented towards comfort and safety. Neither its acceleration nor its handling invite aggressive driving.

Pricing

For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.

The following is from when the review was originally written:

The XC90 I drove listed for $44,730, including $1,675 for the third seat (deduct this when comparing to SUVs without a third row), $595 for a “climate package” (heated front seats, automatic wipers, headlamp wipers), $500 for xenon headlamps, $1,300 for a package including the 18” wheels and uprated stereo, and $450 for metallic paint. The main option it lacked was the $1,895 nav system. Edmunds suggests virtually no discounting, even though the 2004s are already available. The 2004s are priced about $600 higher.

Befitting the small difference in performance, Volvo charges less for the uplevel engine than Infiniti or BMW. A T5 equipped like the 2003 T6 I drove (but without the 18-inch wheels or power retractable mirrors) lists for $42,830.

I won’t bother to compare the prices of the Infiniti FX35 or BMW X5. Those offer much sportier handling in return for less capacity. The choice between them and the Volvo should be based on these differences.

The vehicle most similar to the Volvo is the Acura MDX, which lists for $38,800 in a “touring” model equipped like the XC90 I drove. The Acura doesn’t look as good, and its stability control lacks the Volvo’s anti-rollover features, and feels a bit less luxurious inside, but is quicker, better handling, and feels roomier. For most people it is a better value.

Even less expensive is the 2004 Chrysler Pacifica, which lists for $36,890 equipped as close as possible to the Volvo. The typical dealer discount and a $1,000 rebate brings this down to about $35,100 according to Edmunds. The main feature it lacks is stability control, which a vehicle in this class should have. Like the Acura, it is available with a rear seat entertainment system. The Pacifica handles more like a car than the other two owing to a lower seating position, but also lacks their ground clearance. Through the steering and brakes the Pacifica manages to feel like a more massive vehicle than the Volvo, though they weight about the same. Accleration is about on par with the XC90 T5. If you plan to remain on the pavement, this won’t matter. Materials are notably better than past Chryslers, about equal to those in the Acura. Chrysler has been having trouble selling a vehicle over $30,000, so I would expect larger rebates in the future. Even at the current price, it is much less expensive than the Volvo. Definitely worth considering.

The Volvo’s price seems more reasonable compared to the slightly pricier SUVs from Mercedes and BMW, especially considering that those are smaller, less voluminous vehicles without a third row. If you want a European brand and a third row with your SUV, the Volvo is currently your only alternative.

Final Words

From its appearance and horsepower I thought the Volvo XC90 might serve as a larger, more versatile substitute for BMW’s X5. However, it is biased much more towards comfort and utility. This is not a problem for most people shopping for such a vehicle, as sporty handling likely isn’t high on their list of priorities. They’re interested in room, safety, comfort, and perhaps prestige, and in these areas the XC90 does well. Acura and Chrysler offer less expensive alternatives, but for people who desire a European SUV with three rows of seats, the Volvo is currently the only game in town.

Without considering price this is a four-star vehicle. But because the price is significantly higher than comparable vehicles, I've reduced my rating to three.

To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com. A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.
Amount Paid (US$): 44,730
Model and Options: T6 most options