xc90 as a teen vehicle?

Stickygreen · Nov 28, 2022

*********** said:
Statistically an SUV has a much higher death rate than a car. Most SUVs I wouldn't dream of owning or having a teenager drive. It's such a myth that SUVs are saver. Good look at the actual injury readings in a Chevy Suburban and compare that to the S60. The S60 is WAY safer. There are only a few instances a large vehicle actual outperforms a smaller, lighter car. Must SUVs just roll over and crush their occupants when the roof collapses in on them. There is literally almost no SUV that has a higher rating than a well-designed Volvo sedan...period.

man…you just make things up as you go huh? S60 is a very safe car but pretty much everything else you posted is nonsense

31355 · Nov 28, 2022

SDspeed said:
Rear-end collisions also aren’t tested, so while it may be true that a Suburban is not a safe vehicle in a rollover, it is what you want to be driving in a head-on or rear-end collision. If two vehicles with the same mass driving the same speed meet in a head-on collision, they both come to a stop. If instead one of them is much heavier than the other, the heavier vehicle will slow down during the collision but continue to roll forward while the lighter vehicle will come to a stop and bounce backward. Passengers in the lighter vehicle will experience greater deceleration.

So the safest vehicle for its own passengers is a heavy vehicle with a low center of gravity and good crash ratings. Like a Mercedes S-Class for example (4,800 lbs vs the XC90 at 4,500 lbs).

Completely flawed thinking. This is the EXACT type of comments Volvo has been trying to combat for decades. A heavy vehicle doesn't mean jack squat. Energy absorption is the key to occupant safety, and no body on frame vehicle can absorb energy like unibody construction. This immediately puts these large SUVs at a disadvantage. Volvo has shown MANY crash test results of is own small cars against it's largest SUVs, and you'll note there is basically ZERO improved safety of the SUV over the car.

If you wanted me to be intentionally hit a Suburban or Navigator head on, and I could pick to drive one of those or my S60 I would pick the S60. All. Day. Long. Have you actually seen the VERY poor injury metrics in a large SUV? Don't be fooled by 5 stars. Do a little research into chest compression, rib diffraction or neck snap and compare that to a Volvo sedan.

These large vehicles may perform "good", but in reality there are MANY smaller vehicles that actually perform much better, even if they hit a large vehicle. Just good look at a Smart car crash test result. Bigger is not always better. In fact, they can be a huge liability because these large vehicles tend to be in MORE accidents in the first place because of their ponderous handling, long stopping distances and high center of gravity. AVOIDING an accident is the best way to not be injured in the first place, and these big SUVs suck at that. Notice Volvo will show you crash tests of roll overs, rear end collisions, mixed vehicle sizes....all enough to see their products have a high degree of probability in outperforming big SUVs. If SUVs are so safe, why do they have some of the highest fatality rates in the nation?

Stickygreen · Nov 28, 2022

Vehicle size and weight

🙄

p.rico · Nov 28, 2022

SDspeed said:
Learning to drive is a process. The size of the XC90 makes it more challenging to learn on, but eventually those lessons stick. My daughter doesn’t sit very high in the chair, but it sounds like the OP’s kid might, which would make visibility less of an issue.

Too many folks put stock into the notion, or perception, of driver height being a trait for improved visibility, awareness of the surroundings through improved visibility around the vehicle (from better sight lines, smaller pillars, more glass), not just from above, is a lot more advantageous.

Driving is a learning process... true. But putting someone in a larger vehicle that they themselves have no awareness for makes them more the liability to those around them... it's a conundrum, because as you want to have a large vehicle to sit your loved one into to keep them safe, they're also putting others at higher risk of a potentially debilitating collision.

Pioneer4x4 · Nov 28, 2022

*********** said:
...AVOIDING an accident is the best way to not be injured in the first place, and these big SUVs suck at that...

...
If SUVs are so safe, why do they have some of the highest fatality rates in the nation?
[/QUOTE]
Because there are WAY more of them

p.rico · Nov 28, 2022

Pioneer4x4 said:
Because there are WAY more of them

Statistics like these are generally, if not in most cases, normalized to remove effect of population of subsets.

SDspeed · Nov 28, 2022

It's not crash ratings or weight that matter, it's crash ratings and weight (and maneuverability, driver skill, speed, etc.).

Fatality Facts 2020: Passenger vehicle occupants

31355 · Nov 28, 2022

SDspeed said:
Fatality Facts 2020: Passenger vehicle occupants

View attachment 174926

Charts like this are MEANINGLESS. They prove or disprove nothing. It’s simply a snapshot of a set grouping of facts that excludes other facts. This proves nothing about one car being more safe than another.

31355 · Nov 28, 2022

Pioneer4x4 said:
...
If SUVs are so safe, why do they have some of the highest fatality rates in the nation?

Because there are WAY more of them
[/QUOTE]
That it simply not true. Maybe some day in the future, but not yet.

Machupo · Nov 28, 2022

Personally, I would hesitate to give an inexperienced driver that much car to have to navigate. Larger cars also mean more damage to whatever/whomever is on the other end of the impact.

Ultrarunner511 · Nov 28, 2022

Machupo said:
Personally, I would hesitate to give an inexperienced driver that much car to have to navigate. Larger cars also mean more damage to whatever/whomever is on the other end of the impact.

Now apply that logic to a motorcycle [emoji2369]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pioneer4x4 · Nov 28, 2022

*********** said:
Charts like this are MEANINGLESS. They prove or disprove nothing. It’s simply a snapshot of a set grouping of facts that excludes other facts. This proves nothing about one car being more safe than another.

They are a lot more useful than the generalizations that are in some of your (and my) statements. They account for actual number of the vehicles on the road.
THIS is what matters in all reality more than ANYTHING safety wise.
Twenty-four percent of passenger vehicle occupants killed in 2020 were younger than 25.

And as interesting is, the 70+ category is the 2nd highest, BUT the age group before that is the LOWEST.
Simple in theory, impossible in reality. Raise the minimum driving age, and severely increase testing and education for driving.
And assigning a vehicle type to fatality/crash rates are not as meaningful until you factor in actual crash causes. Teenagers are probably mainly loss of control/speeding fatalities, and the vehicle has little to do with it. (Plus like the actual reasoning of this thread, they are more likely to be in older, cheaper, less properly maintained cars)
Which I assume the OP wanted to avoid.
To sum up, don't put teens into something expensive and precious to you that they will destroy, unless the teenagers are more precious to you than the car.

SDspeed · Nov 28, 2022

It's unfortunate that they didn't further break down the <25 and 70+ categories to make them comparable. Every other age bracket is five years. The <25 bracket is more like 10 years (i.e. 16-25) and the 70+ bracket is even bigger. So neither of those groupings is quite as bad as they appear.

Sumfuncomet · Nov 28, 2022

specepic said:
IN the market for a 3rd vehicle for teens in the household (one already driving, the other learning soon)

Was mainly looking at Subaru, Nissan Altima, Accord, etc.

Decent used for those are 18K-25K, New are about 30-35K

Randomly saw a listing for a 2018 xc90 Momentum with 70,000 miles, two owner (first owner appears to have been loaner/dealer vehicle) dealer serviced every time, and has brand new brakes all around. clean carfax.

They want $31,500 at the volvo dealer

How are we feeling about low term relaibility? I know there were issues 2016/2017 (spark plugs, oil consumption, etc.)

We have a 2019 Inscript xc90 at 60000 which we bought the lease out on. It has been good

Thoughts?

Main negative might be mpg and premium gas (Altima gets 40+ mpg hwy!)

For a teen????? No way! 5,000.00 or so used Civic or Corolla. No way did I ever buy any of my four more than an entry level car. One son sneered at a Honda because it was “cheap”. After walking some more his pride vanished, went two years of high school, four years of college, put 115,000 miles on it and he grew to appreciate being able to park on Boston streets because of size and not really caring about bumper warts. Of course some kids wouldn’t be seen in such a car, my kids grew to appreciate doing more with less!

31355 · Nov 28, 2022

Pioneer4x4 said:
.
To sum up, don't put teens into something expensive and precious to you that they will destroy, unless the teenagers are more precious to you than the car.

….or put your teen in something reasonably priced and extremely safe because you value them AND find unnecessary and wasteful to place them in a near new expensive luxury car they are guaranteed to mindlessly destroy. It’s really quit silly to think the only way to protect your child is place them in an expensive, range -topping VolvoSUV.

Machupo · Nov 28, 2022

SDspeed said:
It's unfortunate that they didn't further break down the <25 and 70+ categories to make them comparable. Every other age bracket is five years. The <25 bracket is more like 10 years (i.e. 16-25) and the 70+ bracket is even bigger. So neither of those groupings is quite as bad as they appear.

Or they could go even further by doing some analysis of miles driven by granular age and then adjusting the age brackets so that each range had relatively similar hazard exposure durations. Then you could draw some reasonable risk weighting out of the data.

SDspeed · Nov 28, 2022

Machupo said:
Or they could go even further by doing some analysis of miles driven by granular age and then adjusting the age brackets so that each range had relatively similar hazard exposure durations. Then you could draw some reasonable risk weighting out of the data.

That's true, but I'm guessing they didn't have that data available. Easier to report fatalities by age without qualifying it, but it's misleading to publish a table where the units of measurement change.

TurboV70GLT · Nov 28, 2022

SDspeed said:
That's true, but I'm guessing they didn't have that data available. Easier to report fatalities by age without qualifying it, but it's misleading to publish a table where the units of measurement change.

Data I would argue shows the general population personally I would do anything to improve my child’s skill such as a manual and with a manual I’ve noticed myself looking at my phone way less. Be patient when you teach them. Like you said the measurements can change based on many factors

Ultrarunner511 · Nov 29, 2022

Pioneer4x4 said:
They are a lot more useful than the generalizations that are in some of your (and my) statements. They account for actual number of the vehicles on the road.
THIS is what matters in all reality more than ANYTHING safety wise.
Twenty-four percent of passenger vehicle occupants killed in 2020 were younger than 25.
View attachment 174933
And as interesting is, the 70+ category is the 2nd highest, BUT the age group before that is the LOWEST.
Simple in theory, impossible in reality. Raise the minimum driving age, and severely increase testing and education for driving.
And assigning a vehicle type to fatality/crash rates are not as meaningful until you factor in actual crash causes. Teenagers are probably mainly loss of control/speeding fatalities, and the vehicle has little to do with it. (Plus like the actual reasoning of this thread, they are more likely to be in older, cheaper, less properly maintained cars)
Which I assume the OP wanted to avoid.
To sum up, don't put teens into something expensive and precious to you that they will destroy, unless the teenagers are more precious to you than the car.

Damn. Well said!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ultrarunner511 · Nov 29, 2022

*********** said:
Completely flawed thinking. This is the EXACT type of comments Volvo has been trying to combat for decades. A heavy vehicle doesn't mean jack squat. Energy absorption is the key to occupant safety, and no body on frame vehicle can absorb energy like unibody construction. This immediately puts these large SUVs at a disadvantage. Volvo has shown MANY crash test results of is own small cars against it's largest SUVs, and you'll note there is basically ZERO improved safety of the SUV over the car.

If you wanted me to be intentionally hit a Suburban or Navigator head on, and I could pick to drive one of those or my S60 I would pick the S60. All. Day. Long. Have you actually seen the VERY poor injury metrics in a large SUV? Don't be fooled by 5 stars. Do a little research into chest compression, rib diffraction or neck snap and compare that to a Volvo sedan.

These large vehicles may perform "good", but in reality there are MANY smaller vehicles that actually perform much better, even if they hit a large vehicle. Just good look at a Smart car crash test result. Bigger is not always better. In fact, they can be a huge liability because these large vehicles tend to be in MORE accidents in the first place because of their ponderous handling, long stopping distances and high center of gravity. AVOIDING an accident is the best way to not be injured in the first place, and these big SUVs suck at that. Notice Volvo will show you crash tests of roll overs, rear end collisions, mixed vehicle sizes....all enough to see their products have a high degree of probability in outperforming big SUVs. If SUVs are so safe, why do they have some of the highest fatality rates in the nation?

“Just good look at a Smart car crash test result…” Grammar aside…

Here ya go. The head trauma alone would certainly risk death, among the other forces to the rest of the body. [emoji849][emoji849][emoji849]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

xc90 as a teen vehicle?

Stickygreen

31355

Stickygreen

p.rico

Pioneer4x4

p.rico

SDspeed

31355

31355

Machupo

Ultrarunner511

Pioneer4x4

SDspeed

Sumfuncomet

31355

Machupo

SDspeed

TurboV70GLT

Ultrarunner511

Ultrarunner511

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities