SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
My inlaws are looking to add to the fleet and my they love the throttle response of their '06 S60 2.5T. The lower spooling rpm turbo can't be beat, at least to them. Now they've been looking at a larger vehicle for hauling stuff. They've owned bricks since '73 and would like to convince them to get an XC 90.<p>Anyway, can anyone give me a brief comparison of the XC90 and the X-3/5's in terms of MPG, comfort, cargo capacity and throttle response. Which ever they go with, they won't buy the 8 cylinder version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (Beiner)

Having driven several of all three models (and several drives of each) when looking for a vehicle for my wife (XC, X3, and X5) i found the following differences:<p>The 3 and 5:<br>-were FAR more stable and cornered far better than the Volvo.<br>-had better visibility<br>-nice large sunroofs<br>-heated stearing wheel for winter - nice<br>-great low end torque<br>-ipod ready<br>-not the greatest MPG (X5), but the X3 is not too bad<br>-very good fit and finish<p>The Volvo:<br>-had better cargo room in the rear section.<br>-good pickup, even with the 2.5T engine (but can't touch the BMWs in the low end)<br>-comfy seats<br>-very good MPG with the 2.5 Engine and 5 speed tranny<br>-lower maintenance costs than the BMW<br>-buttons and controls in same location and layout as on the S60, so instantly at home (BMW controls are almost all reversed)<p>In the end we bought a 3 series 325xi station wagon instead of the X3.<br>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,166 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (Beiner)

If they want a 2.5T, better hurry since this engine goes away for 2007 in favor of the 3.2 I6.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (MagoonR)

We owned an X5 3.0 before the XC90 V8. In all honesty, we miss the BMW(it just drove so much better).<p>A quick comparison:<p>Comfort - Volvo (softer springs means softer ride)<br>Throttle Response - Volvo (BMW throttle response lags)<br>Handling - BMW (no question about it)<br>Interior Passenger Space - BMW (more legroom in second row)<br>Interior Cargo Space - Volvo (much, much bigger)<br>Fuel Economy - BMW (it would do 17 city/22 highway)<br>Reliability - BMW (flawless for 40,000 miles)<p>Note the X5 gets replaced with an all-new model in less than six months. <p>If it matters, for my in-laws who want an SUV... I am suggesting a Lexus RX350.<p><br>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (Emission)

Most of these things are very subjective, and tastes differ. For example, I personally tend to find throttle response poor with a turbo. I liked driving the XC90 V8 better, and the dealer near me has a few at deep discounts.<p>Best thing, of course, is to just take some test drives. Drive everything that might be a contender. It's easy to do these days, dealers aren't nearly as hard to deal with as they used to be.<p>My site can be used to compare prices and features. Nothing else like it.<p>Page for the XC90: <A HREF="http://www.truedelta.com/models/XC90.php" TARGET="_blank">http://www.truedelta.com/models/XC90.php</A><p>You'll find the six models to which the XC90 is most often compared in the right sidebar.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
39,263 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (Emission)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Emission</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">We owned an X5 3.0 before the XC90 V8. In all honesty, we miss the BMW(it just drove so much better).<p>A quick comparison:<p><br>Handling - BMW (no question about it)</TD></TR></TABLE><p>How so? In tests, the XC90 has outhandled the X5. Even when one does to moose avoidance test, the XC90 was able to go through that test at a faster rate of speed and with less violent reactions. Admittedly, the X5 (and accordign to the independent pro drivers who tested both cars) was the closest (in emergency handling) to the XC90.<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Interior Passenger Space - BMW (more legroom in second row)</TD></TR></TABLE><p>I don't think so. This is straight from the BMW website (first column is the X5 and the other column corresponds to the XC90's dimensions):<p> Exterior length 183.7 " 188.9 " <br> Exterior body width 73.7 " 74.7 " <br> Exterior height 67.5 " 70.2 " <br> Wheelbase 111.0 " 112.6 " <br> Turning radius 19.8 ' 20.0 ' <br> Front legroom 39.3 " 41.0 " <br> Rear legroom 35.4 " 36.4 " <br> Front headroom 39.9 " 40.1 " <br> Rear headroom 38.5 " 39.5 " <br> Front shoulder room 58.0 " 58.3 " <br> Rear shoulder room 57.2 " 57.8 " <br> Passenger volume 97.6 cu.ft. 102.4 cu.ft. <br> Cargo capacity 23.8 cu.ft. 41.6 cu. ft.<br><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><br>Fuel Economy - BMW (it would do 17 city/22 highway)</TD></TR></TABLE><p>So will the 2.5T. If you are going to use the XC90 V8 for comparison, I think it would be fair to use the X5 4.4i, not the 3.0<p>Yannis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,166 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (GrecianVolvo)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>GrecianVolvo</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't think so. This is straight from the BMW website (first column is the X5 and the other column corresponds to the XC90's dimensions):<br> <br> Turning radius 19.8 ' 20.0 ' </TD></TR></TABLE><p>OMG.....that's less than 1/2 of the R's turning radius. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/zeroforum_graphics/screwy.gif" BORDER="0"> <p><br><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>GrecianVolvo</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So will the 2.5T. If you are going to use the XC90 V8 for comparison, I think it would be fair to use the X5 4.4i, not the 3.0<p>Yannis</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Perhaps he is comparing price points?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (GrecianVolvo)

I normally don't jump into these, but I couldn't believe that you actually felt the XC90 handles better than the X5 (I've owned both). so I did a little research in some of the popular car mags. Here's basically what I found...<p>Slalom:<br>X5 = 62.80 MPH<br>XC90 = 58.20 MPH<p>Skidpad:<br>X5 = .81<br>XC90 = .77<p>Braking (60 - 0)<br>X5 = 114 ft<br>XC90 = 137 ft<p>I didn't run the test's myself (or see them), but the data here clearly gives the nod to the X5 (this, by the way was comparing the T6 to the 3.0).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
39,263 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (Thomas)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Thomas</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I normally don't jump into these, but I couldn't believe that you actually felt the XC90 handles better than the X5 (I've owned both). so I did a little research in some of the popular car mags. Here's basically what I found...<p>Slalom:<br>X5 = 62.80 MPH<br>XC90 = 58.20 MPH<p>Skidpad:<br>X5 = .81<br>XC90 = .77<p>Braking (60 - 0)<br>X5 = 114 ft<br>XC90 = 137 ft<p>I didn't run the test's myself (or see them), but the data here clearly gives the nod to the X5 (this, by the way was comparing the T6 to the 3.0).</TD></TR></TABLE><p>I can appreciate the figures and I am not going to argue with you. But, I will take them with a grain of salt vs. what ACTUAL PERFORMANCE drivers have achieved. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/wink.gif" BORDER="0"><p>Yannis
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
39,263 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (MagoonR)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>MagoonR</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><p>Perhaps he is comparing price points?</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Perhaps. But I brought that up (X5 3.0i vs. XC90 V8) regarding fuel mileage. Of course, a V8 engine will burn more fuel than a 6-cyl. one. <p><br>Yannis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,740 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (GrecianVolvo)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>GrecianVolvo</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><br>But, I will take them with a grain of salt vs. what ACTUAL PERFORMANCE drivers have achieved. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/wink.gif" BORDER="0"><br></TD></TR></TABLE><p>And what did ACTUAL PERFORMANCE drivers achieve? Did they achieve this during a volvo sponsored event or an open neutral event? <p><br>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,745 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (pattyweb)

One additional data point in comparing XC90 vs. BMW X is that the XC90 really should be compared against the X-5. The X-3 may be comparable to the virtual Volvo XC50 (if it ever sees the light of day). Within the X-5 and XC90 comparison, I would say that the X-5 3.0i should be compared to the XC90 2.5T (and in 2007 against the 3.2 version XC90) and the X-5 4.4i should be compared against the XC90 V8.<p>Handling may be the X-5's strong point; I am not going to debate that issue. If you really want a great handling car, the M3 deserves consideration (or a MINI MCS, or a Corvette, or a Lotus Elise, or.....). Frankly, I wouldn't personally buy an X-5 (or an XC90) for its handling ability.<p>The comparison between the X-5 and the XC90 comes down to whether you want three rows of seating (if so, then the XC90 is the choice), how much stuff you need to haul around (again, if you want to haul a lot of stuff, the XC90 has more room behind the front row seats) and relative differences in safety (IIHS scored the XC90 ahead of the X-5 and I would tend to agree, especially when considering roll-over protection). Even with $3+ gas prices, a 1 mpg difference is not going to make a cost-benefit argument anytime soon. If you want speed, the X-5 4.8i gets the nod. But then again, the X-5 4.8i is not that much faster. Edmunds has it at somewhere around 6.8-ish seconds for 0-60 mph; that is not exactly running away and hiding from the XC90 V8.<p>Braking performance is another area where for very little $, you can get the XC90 on a par with the X-5. For a little less than $200 for a set of ceramic pads, I was able to get the XC90 V8 braking performance (60-0 stopping distance) down into the sub-115 foot range. I have observed stopping distances between 113 (! damn, thats M3 territory!...) feet to 115 feet with the ceramic pads on the XC90 V8. Plus, there is no brake dust on the wheels with ceramic pads....<p>The above items were what I considered in deciding whether to get the XC90 V8 vs. the X-5 4.4i. I ultimately went with the XC90 V8 on safety and haulability grounds. I presently have a car that handles whatever performance consideration I have - a 2003 Corvette coupe; and as I stated earlier in this post, I just don't see the logic of buying an SUV to be a performance car.<p>Hope this helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (avolvofan)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>avolvofan</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">For a little less than $200 for a set of ceramic pads, I was able to get the XC90 V8 braking performance (60-0 stopping distance) down into the sub-115 foot range. I have observed stopping distances between 113 (! damn, thats M3 territory!...) </TD></TR></TABLE><p>I hope you are kidding right?? How did you test the magic brake pads? <p>Seriously, I have never even heard pads changing braking so significantly?? Big brake kits such as Brembo and Alcon, will usually only offer improved resistance to fade and better modualtion. Raw distance is more a function of weight and tire grip??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,745 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (Colorado XC90 T6)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Colorado XC90 T6</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I hope you are kidding right?? How did you test the magic brake pads?</TD></TR></TABLE><br>No, I wouldn't kid about a performance improvement. With a GTech Pro. See <A HREF="http://www.gtechpro.com" TARGET="_blank">http://www.gtechpro.com</A>/ <p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Colorado XC90 T6</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Seriously, I have never even heard pads changing braking so significantly?? Big brake kits such as Brembo and Alcon, will usually only offer improved resistance to fade and better modualtion. Raw distance is more a function of weight and tire grip??</TD></TR></TABLE><br>You need to spend some more time researching how to improve braking performance. Tirerack.com is a good place to start. BRIEFLY, pads and more sticky tires can provide an initial improvement (I have Michelin Diamaris tires in 255/55-18 on the car in addition to the ceramic pads). If you are looking for more improvement, your next stop is larger rotors and multi-piston calipers. But there is such thing as too much improvement, where the balance of the car is thrown off and you actually have control problems.<p>As an example of what can be gained from a well thought-out approach, my 2003 Corvette coupe as it came from the factory was rated by Chevrolet at 125 feet 60-0. I replaced the factory set-up with an aftermarket kit that swapped the pads, larger rotors and 6 piston calipers in front and 4 piston calipers in the rear (pretty much what the C6 Z06 has) and 60-0 distance is now down to 94-98 feet. There is also no fade even after repeated 100-0 stops (off road testing at a private airstrip). The only problem that I have with the Corvette, is that after driving the Corvette, I have to go through a familiarization run to get adjusted to the longer stopping distance in the Volvos (S60R and XC90).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (avolvofan)

Thanks for the reply. I was curious if you did baseline testing on your car prior to modification?<p>Clearly bigger tires can alone contribute to improved stopping, but I would be impressed to see a ~25 ft improvement from the ceramic pads alone. Did that happen? Or are you comparing the published values to yours?<p>Thanks <p>Todd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,166 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (avolvofan)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>avolvofan</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">One additional data point in comparing XC90 vs. BMW X is that the XC90 really should be compared against the X-5. The X-3 may be comparable to the virtual Volvo XC50 (if it ever sees the light of day). Within the X-5 and XC90 comparison, I would say that the X-5 3.0i should be compared to the XC90 2.5T (and in 2007 against the 3.2 version XC90) and the X-5 4.4i should be compared against the XC90 V8.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Believe it or not, the X3 is similar in interior room to the X5. The X5 just looks bigger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (avolvofan)

avolovfan,<p>First of all, a new set of pads isn't going to haul a 4610 pound SUV down from 60 mph in 113 feet. Not going to happen. The XC90 has single piston calipers (correct me if I am wrong).<p>Second, I've had a BMW X5 4.8i on the Big Track at Willow Springs. It was impressive - no XC90 V8 could have come close.<p>Third, it is saddening to hear you had to dump your stock 'Vette brakes and upgrade calipers, rotors, and pads to get acceptable braking performance. Isn't the 'Vette supposed to be a performance car? What did you spend? $4,000? <p>Finally, brakes are a mechanical heat sink. Improve cooling, and you increase the amount of energy they can absorb (improving braking). Remove the splash shields (at your own risk) and duct some cold air in there... <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
39,263 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (MagoonR)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>MagoonR</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><p>Believe it or not, the X3 is similar in interior room to the X5. The X5 just looks bigger.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>You are partially right. The X3 and X5 trade "more room" with each ohter in the leg room category. WHen it comes to shoulder room, the X5 is at least 2.5" to 3" wider and its passenger capacity is at least 6 cu. ft. larger than the X3's.<p>Last, I think the X5's wheelbase iat least 4" or more longer than that of the X3 (not sure, any BMW afficionado can correct me if I am wrong).<p>Yannis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (GrecianVolvo)

I am Moderator at Bimmerfest, a BMW board with 50,000+ members.<p>Yannis is right, the X3 and X5 do trade interior dimensions... much to the chagrin of X5 owners. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/tongue.gif" BORDER="0"> (I was one of them.)<p>However, the X5 is much wider, especially when you have a couple carseats back there.<p>In addition, the ride of the X3, has been described as... um... harsh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,166 Posts
Re: '06 XC 90 vs. BMW X-3/X-5 (Emission)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Emission</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I am Moderator at Bimmerfest, a BMW board with 50,000+ members.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>And I am one of them. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/tongue.gif" BORDER="0"> What a coincidence.<p>Perhaps you can tell me if M3 owners feel the need to prove themselves at crazy speeds on public roads to justify their purchase. There's a few R owners who feel the need here unfortunately. It's kind of comical.<p>Much thanks.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top