SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I need a 7 seater with AWD. I am looking at the specs in Volvo website.<p>The only reason I am looking at the i6 is better mileage.<p>i6 - mileage 17/22 weight 4400 lbs.<p>v8 mileage 15/21 weight 4826 lbs.<p>Are all the i6 specs for the base 5 seater version? Then the i6 with 3rd row will not have much difference in mpg compared with the v8. Does that sound right?<p>
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
39,263 Posts
Re: Help me decide between the i6 and v8 MY07s! (ashankar)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>ashankar</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I need a 7 seater with AWD. I am looking at the specs in Volvo website.<p>The only reason I am looking at the i6 is better mileage.<p>i6 - mileage 17/22 weight 4400 lbs.<p>v8 mileage 15/21 weight 4826 lbs.<p>Are all the i6 specs for the base 5 seater version? Then the i6 with 3rd row will not have much difference in mpg compared with the v8. Does that sound right?<p></TD></TR></TABLE><p>There is no difference in listed gas mileage between a 5-pass. and a 7-pass. XC90. Natually, if you load up the 7-pass. XC90 to the gills, you should expect to see a difference.<p>The V8 will be slightly thirstier but not by much. The big issue os the price difference. If price is not an issue, then you would be a fool to not get the V8.<p>Yannis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,166 Posts
Re: Help me decide between the i6 and v8 MY07s! (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">The V8 will be slightly thirstier but not by much. The big issue os the price difference. If price is not an issue, then you would be a fool to not get the V8.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Especially if you plan to haul 7 passengers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Re: Help me decide between the i6 and v8 MY07s! (ashankar)

I am very happy with my XC90 with the I6. ON the highway, it has good passing power and the engine is very smooth. For an inline six, it moves quite well with decent midrange torque. My rationale between the I6 and the V8 came down to how the vehicle would be used. It is not used to burn stoplight to stoplight, but to transport my family with average acceleration. I would say that the 3.2 is amore than adequate and definitely a step up from the 2.5T.<p>Keep in mind tha the tranny helps acceleration too. I just average a stellar 21 mpg on a round trip 800mile trip with a 75-80mph average speed. On a green engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Re: Help me decide between the i6 and v8 MY07s! (coladin)

If you don't need the V8 (towing, hauling loads, many passengers, ego, etc...) then get the I6.<p>We were very happy with our X5 3.0 I6 for three years. Sure, it was a bit slower (0-60 in 7.9 seconds) off the line and on the highway (especially), but it still got us around.<p>Now, the V8 in the XC90 makes it a screamer. At 80 mph on the highway you floor it and it FLIES. I can guarantee it will dust the I6 in passing speed. Around town, gearing can make the I6 feel as powerful as the V8.<p>What do you need? What do you want?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
folks, thanks for your opinions.<p>As for price difference, it quickly thins to about $3k if you add the premium package and third row to the i6. <p>I will be test driving an i6 today and if it doesn't feel too lumbering, it will be our pick. I am not buying this to race, and will not be towing anything.<p> Ofcourse I plan to designate this as my wife's car and shop for some thing else for my ego <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/smile.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,839 Posts
Re: (ashankar)

I'd still go w/ the V8.<p>The price difference isn't that much, the gas difference isn't that much.<br>The V8 is much more rewarding to drive, plus the resale will be better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,340 Posts
Re: (Greasemonkeyjoe)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Greasemonkeyjoe</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Grossly underpowered </TD></TR></TABLE><p> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/confused.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Re: (needsdecaf)

Is the new I6 going to be N/A? Otherwise I have no idea what he is talking about...I still prefer I6s for their simplicity and smoothness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Re: Help me decide between the i6 and v8 MY07s! (ashankar)

The V8 is the only way to go. The Power is outstanding. The 6 speed transmission is perfect. You have accelaration matching that of a Porsche Cayenne S. This car is more fun to drive than my Ford Mustang GT! I have a constant grin when I drive.<p>In regards to mpg...I can usually get about 17 mpg city and 22-23 mpg on the hyw; however I have gotten 25.5 mpg on a drive from Sacramento to Bakersfield, CA (all flat)!!!<p>Hands down, this is the most Practical V8 SUV that is still packed with performance. Compared to BMW, Mercedes, and Porsche you spend $10K more to get comperable performance. <p>Hope this helps!<p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Just to let you folks know that we are going with a V8! I have to agree with VolvoMax.<p>The i6 was very smooth in shifting and sounded very pleasant. But I couldn't help noticing that it kept revving up to 3000+ rpm anytime I pushed it. It could use a little more power/torque at lower rpm. May be a turbo version will address that <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/smile.gif" BORDER="0"><p>Overall the interiors look great, and the AUX port is located in near the cup holders, so the iPod is good to go. Looking forward to seeing it on my driveway!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
498 Posts
Re: (ashankar)

Arun,<p>Good choice! The V8 is fun to drive with little compromise in fuel mileage, etc. You will enjoy it.<p>Cheers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Re: (needsdecaf)

From Merriam-Webster<p>Main Entry: ¹gross<br>Function: adjective<br>Pronunciation: 'grOs<br>Etymology: Middle English grosse, from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French gros large, thick, whole, from Late Latin grossus coarse<br>1 a archaic : immediately obvious b (1) : glaringly noticeable usually because of inexcusable badness or objectionableness <a gross error> (2) : OUT -and-out, UTTER <a gross injustice> c : visible without the aid of a microscope <br>2 a : BIG , BULKY ; especially : excessively fat b : growing or spreading with excessive luxuriance <br>3 a : of, relating to, or dealing with general aspects or broad distinctions b : consisting of an overall total exclusive of deductions <gross income> -- compare NET <br>4 : made up of material or perceptible elements <br>5 archaic : not fastidious in taste : UNDISCRIMINATING <br>6 a : coarse in nature or behavior : UNREFINED b : gravely deficient in civility or decency : crudely vulgar <merely gross, a scatological rather than a pornographic impropriety -- Aldous Huxley > c : inspiring disgust or distaste <that sandwich looks gross> <br>7 : deficient in knowledge : IGNORANT , UNTUTORED <br>synonym see COARSE , FLAGRANT <br><B>- gross·ly adverb</B><I></I><U></U> <br>- gross·ness noun<p><br>Main Entry: un·der·pow·ered<br>Function: adjective<br>Pronunciation: -'pau(-&)rd<br>1 : driven by an engine of insufficient power <br>2 : having or supplied with insufficient power<p>Was I unclear? or did you think I spelled it wrong and you were being pithy?<p>I drove a 2007 xc 90 with the 3.2 and I think a n/a 240 would walk away from it.<p><br>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Re: (Greasemonkeyjoe)

Why didn't you just say this in your first post instead of wasting memory? You sound like Bill O'Reilley. Pithy... <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/zeroforum_graphics/screwy.gif" BORDER="0"> I can't see how the new I6 can be that slow unless Volvo is running it N/A. Just about anything can out-run an old 240. My girlfriend's 626 can out-race a 240...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,388 Posts
Re: Help me decide between the i6 and v8 MY07s! (ashankar)

not sure what to make of it, but while getting my car services last week, the service crew pretty much dissed the 6. Calling it slow and sluggish. they think their remaining stock of 06 2.5's will be bought up fast by people who want an XC90 but not a V8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,388 Posts
Re: Help me decide between the i6 and v8 MY07s! (COMark)

anyone tried the 6 in the mountains? I can't imagine it being able to keep pace w/ a turbo'd 2.5T on steep climbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Re: (Majisto)

I can't see how the new I6 can be that slow unless Volvo is running it N/A. Just about anything can out-run an old 240. My girlfriend's 626 can out-race a 240...<p><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>The New I6 is slow and it is N/A <I>that</I> was the point and I said a n/a 240 <B>COULD</B><I></I> outrun the new 90. btw I DID say this in my 1st post but needsdecaf didnt seem to get it. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/zeroforum_graphics/screwy.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>Since you are a fan.... NO Bloviating please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,340 Posts
Re: (Greasemonkeyjoe)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Greasemonkeyjoe</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><p>Was I unclear? or did you think I spelled it wrong and you were being pithy?<p>I drove a 2007 xc 90 with the 3.2 and I think a n/a 240 would walk away from it.<p><br></TD></TR></TABLE><p>Well, I really appreciated your English lesson. Really it was super. Did the fact that I am an engineer cause you to believe that I couldn't understand what you read? Maybe I should list my English SAT score and save you the time and effort next time. <p>I understood what you wrote, but you were, in fact, the one being pithy. You made a sweeping statement without giving any backup or reasoning. I was looking for a little elaboration, as to maybe how you came to come by this observation? What personal experience you had that would leave you to believe that, etc? Were you simply looking at the power and torque specs for the car, or had you actually driven it, etc. I have no experience with the new engine, but having extensively driven an XC90 2.5T which has similar torque and horsepower numbers (but I'm sure a different delivery) I am surprised to hear that the I6 is "grossly underpowered" and was interested in hearing a little more about it since I haven't gotten a chance to drive it yet. But instead you took it as a personal attack. <p>As another member on this board has said, "when you post something, it helps to give a reason why you are posting." That's not a flippant comment, it's good advice on the internet where it is hard to read any emotion or further meaning into typed statements. <p>By the way, this:<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Greasemonkeyjoe</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Avoid the new I6 at all costs. Grossly underpowered and in that respect will cause a higher fuel useage than the 8.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>was your first post. Since Majisto's question was why didn't you elaborate on your experience in your first post, I'm really looking hard for the discussion that I apparently "didn't get". <p>The <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/confused.gif" BORDER="0"> icon means "confused" not "the person to whom I am responding is an idiot for having an opinion". I simply looking for an explanation to your opinion, not challenging it. Why you felt the need to try to belittle me by posting dictionary entries, and saying "apparently I didn't get it" I dont' know. <p>Also, adding to my confusion was this article that I had read before reading your post: <p><A HREF="http://www.autocar.co.uk/FirstDrive_Summary.asp?RT=220307" TARGET="_blank">http://www.autocar.co.uk/First...20307</A> which stated:<p><I>What’s it like?<br>With 235bhp and 236lb ft, the new 3.2 instantly trumps the old 2.5 for power, while offering similar fuel economy (23.0mpg combined). On the road, it feels more refined (read: more upmarket), with a slightly more cultured engine note and a willingness to rev. It feels quicker, too, 0-60mph taking 8.9sec. Although it has 59lb ft less torque than the diesel, the six still has decent flexibility, with all 236lb ft coming in at 3200rpm, but if you really want to use the extra speed that it offers over the D5 you’ll have to head towards the 5850rpm power peak, which will soon start to empty the 80-litre fuel tank.</I><p>The link to this article was posted in this very forum. <BR><BR>
<i>Modified by needsdecaf at 2:44 PM 8-6-2006</i>
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top