All these numbers are a kind of idealistic fiction - fuel consumption is almost double in reality than stated in official Volvo papers (5,4 l/100 km vs. the real almost 9-10 l/100km within very mild driving) and the acceleration is slower than stated. These numbers are probably measured in some laboratory conditions ?

 

Here you can watch some examples for 0-100 km/h

8.5s

8.2s

8.5s

8.9s

all four examples starts acceleration without launch control.

Here you can watch two examples using launch control.

7.7s

cca 7.7

So in real world XC90 can accelerate in 8.0 - 8.5 second, 9.3 is unrealistic time.

 

Where is launch control in xc90?

 

Well I don't know but last two examples are doing much more agresive start than others that's why I thought It's launch control.

 

I really don't think it has launch control, but I could be wrong. You could do the equivalent by dropping into drive from neutral at 3500 RPM. I'm not even sure it would let you do that though. Either way 7.7 looks legit if you use some form of clutch dropping.

The other examples were just stepping on the accelerator from a stop.

 

What if you held the brake, put it in drive, then rev'd to 3000rpm and then let off the brake? I wouldn't worry about it too much. Diesels are typically slower than gassers 0 - 100kph but have much more usable torque for typical driving. How often do you need to go from stop to 100kph as quickly as possible? Not as often as you need to pass someone at let's say 60kph I bet. Besides, diesels are more easily tunable than gassers and you can get a lot more power out of them with a tune. Something you can look forward to.

 

What if you held the brake, put it in drive, then rev'd to 3000rpm and then let off the brake? I wouldn't worry about it too much.

It will not have an effect. Unlike an airliner...

 

Most youtube accelaration figures are given by just having a cam in a dash. This is not the correct way. Should be done by GPS and OBD2 automatic data reading and calibration. Allready the displayd kph figure would be off by 4kph.
I was just suprised that I got the figures exactly the same as the Car Magazine.

 

Most examples whitch are posted up are given by GPS so I think the realistic Tine for XC90 D5 is between 8 - 8.5 second.

 

I've driven the XC90 D5 a few times, regarding the fuel consumption. You can in reality get it as low as the official number by driving in ECO/COMFORT at 80-100 kph in average. But if you press the engine you'll end up by consuming around 8-9, it's still a 4 cylinder in a big car. You consume as you drive

Regarding the 0-100 time, there are a lot of factors that affect. But for me personally these times aren't important since it's a family car, and no racer. But I would hardly say that the D5 is a slouch, it can be quite fast and responsive.