SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner
1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey everyone - I recently bought a 2016 XC90 that has Adaptive Cruise Control enabled. I am trying to figure out how to use regular cruise control. I looked in the manual and it says "tap the Cruise control button in function view" to switch to normal CC. I don't see a Cruise Control button anywhere in function view. Have tried looking around to no avail.

When I test drove the car, I asked about this disabling the ACC and was told it was possible (as the owner's manual says), so I assume this is doable. I have a call in to my dealer but haven't heard back.

Does anyone have any advice? Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,436 Posts
It's not possible for now at least. It's been discussed somewhat and noted that other current Volvo models do have acc and regular cruise, though people have suggested that acc renders standard cruise redundant. Other people disagree and, like you, wonder how instructions to switch between the two modes made it all the way into the manual. It's entirely possible it could be added with a software update. Anyway, you're not missing anything, the car is.
 

·
Registered
2021 Inscription Recharge - 2021 Silverado LTZ 6.2L
Joined
·
1,739 Posts
The only problem for now could be, like me, the ACC is delicate, and is disabled for seemingly no reason. The majority of non urban buyers need a non ACC option, be it malfunction or more importantly the inability due to rain, etc. It is a serious deficiency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,766 Posts
Yep, it's either another missing feature or simply ambiguity in the owner's manual depending on your POV, based on the debate about this when I first reported it 5-6 months ago. Either way CC doesn't exist in cars with ACC.

To get ahead of you on a related feature, the North American user manual will talk about a couple Speed Limiter features as well. But they don't exist in North American cars. No explanation why.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
The only problem for now could be, like me, the ACC is delicate, and is disabled for seemingly no reason. The majority of non urban buyers need a non ACC option, be it malfunction or more importantly the inability due to rain, etc. It is a serious deficiency.
I've previously driven an XC60 and S80, and both had the ACC feature on them.

When there was no car in front of you, it behaved like regular cruise control (i.e., would maintain the speed you set). When there was a car in front of you, it would maintain your desired speed, but if you started to get close to the car in front of you, it would maintain your desired distance buffer by slowing down, and then would speed up when the car in front of you sped up or changed lanes or whatever.

So for all intents and purposes, the ACC acted like regular cruise control when there was no car in front of you (i.e., no car within your distance buffer zone).

Are you saying the implementation on the XC90 doesn't behave that way?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
I've previously driven an XC60 and S80, and both had the ACC feature on them.

When there was no car in front of you, it behaved like regular cruise control (i.e., would maintain the speed you set). When there was a car in front of you, it would maintain your desired speed, but if you started to get close to the car in front of you, it would maintain your desired distance buffer by slowing down, and then would speed up when the car in front of you sped up or changed lanes or whatever.

So for all intents and purposes, the ACC acted like regular cruise control.

Are you saying the implementation on the XC90 doesn't behave that way?
I agree with this here. I'm just genuinely curious as to the need for non-ACC. I've used the ACC when there was heavy traffic, and on wide open highways. Like MaxwellMcGee, it acts like regular CC when needed, and ACC when there are cars that are detectable in front of you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,436 Posts
I believe kenhoeve is pointing out that acc relies on a radar system which has already shut itself down due to false alarm "sensor blocked" issues. So basically you get a little sensor error and all of a sudden you have no cruise control at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,766 Posts
Personally for me, I love ACC and use it 100-tmes more than I ever used CC before. I don't miss CC. That said, when i did have CC I could use it differently than ACC. Since it didn't adjust to the speed of traffic in front of you, you could time approaches to vehicles in front of you and move over to the next lane. With ACC it slows you down then takes a moment to kick up to full speed again. Also, some people liked that with CC the default speed increment/decrement was +/- 1 instead of +/- 5 on ACC. Yes, you can press and hold to do +/- 1 but this requires more time and concentration if you are, say, intending to go -3 than with CC where you can do it without looking in a quick click-click-click. And the original Owners Manual (no idea if they have corrected this), gave the impression you had a choice of both functions rather than describing it as a this--or-that depending on your package and trim. Anyway, like I said I don't personally miss it so I have no dog in this ring...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
To get ahead of you on a related feature, the North American user manual will talk about a couple Speed Limiter features as well. But they don't exist in North American cars. No explanation why.
I recall reading about a feature in the manual where you could have the vehicle automatically limit your speed based on speed limit signs. I was looking forward to testing this, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Is this one of those features that's in the manual but doesn't exist in my market?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
I believe kenhoeve is pointing out that acc relies on a radar system which has already shut itself down due to false alarm "sensor blocked" issues. So basically you get a little sensor error and all of a sudden you have no cruise control at all.
Gotcha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Thanks for the responses everyone. I am really surprised by this.

My concern with using the ACC is that I don't like the sensation of losing control of the vehicle in any respect. Even when with the lowest distance setting on, it brakes too far away for my liking (in the Dallas traffic). I have had cars go in between me and the car ahead of me (due to the amount of space it thinks I need), which causes it to brake even more and even more unpredictably from my perspective. It also brakes too heavy and feels jerky.

I love this car otherwise, but I am really stunned that not only was I told by a dealer that I could disable the ACC, the manual even says you can disable the ACC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
I believe kenhoeve is pointing out that acc relies on a radar system which has already shut itself down due to false alarm "sensor blocked" issues. So basically you get a little sensor error and all of a sudden you have no cruise control at all.
I see. So it works as I'd described, but rather than being mechanically controlled (just based on throttle and speed inputs) it's also radar-based and if the radar isn't working, the whole system is non functional.

So if for example you're driving on a long empty stretch of highway during a heavy rainstorm, you might not have any CC option if the radar is obstructed/non-functional.

citivas said:
Personally for me, I love ACC and use it 100-tmes more than I ever used CC before. I don't miss CC. That said, when i did have CC I could use it differently than ACC. Since it didn't adjust to the speed of traffic in front of you, you could time approaches to vehicles in front of you and move over to the next lane. With ACC it slows you down then takes a moment to kick up to full speed again. Also, some people liked that with CC the default speed increment/decrement was +/- 1 instead of +/- 5 on ACC. Yes, you can press and hold to do +/- 1 but this requires more time and concentration if you are, say, intending to go -3 than with CC where you can do it without looking in a quick click-click-click. And the original Owners Manual (no idea if they have corrected this), gave the impression you had a choice of both functions rather than describing it as a this--or-that depending on your package and trim. Anyway, like I said I don't personally miss it so I have no dog in this ring...
Makes sense. I think I understand the limitations.

Personally, it doesn't strike me as a huge deal, but I can see how others might prefer the regular CC capability if that's what fits into their driving patterns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
If the weather is so bad that it is affecting the car's radar, then you probably shouldn't be using ACC in those conditions in the first place. That being said, I do agree that the car should also offer a non-radar dependent version of CC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
If the weather is so bad that it is affecting the car's radar, then you probably shouldn't be using ACC in those conditions in the first place. That being said, I do agree that the car should also offer a non-radar dependent version of CC.
I'm starting to get the feeling that we're all expecting more of the car that perhaps is rational. A few years ago, when cars were decidedly more low-tech, if the car had ACC, we'd jump for joy.

Now that we have it - we say, well, we'd like the option. Perhaps the fact that the car can do so much has skewed our ability to just be ok with things as they are...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
I'm starting to get the feeling that we're all expecting more of the car that perhaps is rational. A few years ago, when cars were decidedly more low-tech, if the car had ACC, we'd jump for joy.

Now that we have it - we say, well, we'd like the option. Perhaps the fact that the car can do so much has skewed our ability to just be ok with things as they are...
Given all the tech related issues we have seen on this vehicle, it's not surprising that people have become skeptical of the features that rely so heavily on the tech.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,436 Posts
I'm starting to get the feeling that we're all expecting more of the car that perhaps is rational. A few years ago, when cars were decidedly more low-tech, if the car had ACC, we'd jump for joy.

Now that we have it - we say, well, we'd like the option. Perhaps the fact that the car can do so much has skewed our ability to just be ok with things as they are...
I completely disagree with this. This sounds like AOL stumping for people to continue using them. The great thing about the time we live in is that technology really is progressing at a rapid pace. Especially things like the driver profiles and ACC/CC. The technology is in place, and was specifically promised. They just can't figure it out.

This is very different than complaining about a glitch in the ACC software or sensors. I very much agree that with all this new tech we need to expect some issues, but to think we should not expect features and be happy with what get, just because.. I don't think so. Also, when I'm talking about this stuff I'm not really complaining so much as pointing out how much potential this system has, and how its sad to see it not being fully realized. On another post I was talking about being able to customize appearance, themes, fonts, lights etc. I'm really not complaining that I can't do that! I just think it would be fun and extremely easy to implement, and would flesh out the tech value of the whole system.

Final note on ACC- mine works in very heavy rain, at night, etc. It seems to be a fairly robust system which is simply, as in kenhoeve's case, prone to false alarm failures due to its complexity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
Final note on ACC- mine works in very heavy rain, at night, etc. It seems to be a fairly robust system which is simply, as in kenhoeve's case, prone to false alarm failures due to its complexity.
I was actually speaking to the complaint of having ACC but not CC - not that we should all have horse and buggies. My ACC works wonderfully and it's a feature I never had a clue I would love and use daily.
If ACC isn't working for someone - that's a technical problem with that vehicle, not a feature that's missing that says we should all have regular CC too.

I think we do need to be realistic though - ACC is a better solution than CC. There's no need for Volvo to spend time developing CC when the entire system is meant to be adaptive and forward-thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
I was actually speaking to the complaint of having ACC but not CC - not that we should all have horse and buggies. My ACC works wonderfully and it's a feature I never had a clue I would love and use daily.
If ACC isn't working for someone - that's a technical problem with that vehicle, not a feature that's missing that says we should all have regular CC too.

I think we do need to be realistic though - ACC is a better solution than CC. There's no need for Volvo to spend time developing CC when the entire system is meant to be adaptive and forward-thinking.
On one hand I agree with you, ACC is far superior to CC and at some point we should just all agree that regular CC is going to become extinct and it's just going to be ACC all the time. Personally I have no desire to ever use regular CC again if I have ACC on my car.

But I also see the point that many of the posters here are making, which is that they paid full price for a car with the understanding that certain features would be available in the car they would receive (driver's profiles, ACC + CC, power folding 3rd row seats, Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, etc.). No one forced Volvo to write that those features into their spec sheets or their manuals, Volvo did that on their own. So now, once the buyers have forked over their money, I certainly understand why they're upset that those promised features aren't being delivered.

It's basically irrelevant as to whether or not the features are useful. Once it's written onto the spec sheet and a buyer makes a purchase on that basis, then the buyer should be entitled to receive those features. And even getting them 6 or 12 months later (which may be the case for Driver's profiles, and potentially also for something like regular CC potentially) is not an adequate answer, unless Volvo somehow compensates the buyers for the time period where they owned the vehicle without said features.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
On one hand I agree with you, ACC is far superior to CC and at some point we should just all agree that regular CC is going to become extinct and it's just going to be ACC all the time. Personally I have no desire to ever use regular CC again if I have ACC on my car.

But I also see the point that many of the posters here are making, which is that they paid full price for a car with the understanding that certain features would be available in the car they would receive (driver's profiles, ACC + CC, power folding 3rd row seats, Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, etc.). No one forced Volvo to write that those features into their spec sheets or their manuals, Volvo did that on their own. So now, once the buyers have forked over their money, I certainly understand why they're upset that those promised features aren't being delivered.

It's basically irrelevant as to whether or not the features are useful. Once it's written onto the spec sheet and a buyer makes a purchase on that basis, then the buyer should be entitled to receive those features. And even getting them 6 or 12 months later (which may be the case for Driver's profiles, and potentially also for something like regular CC potentially) is not an adequate answer, unless Volvo somehow compensates the buyers for the time period where they owned the vehicle without said features.
I understand your point - but the fact is, there were things missing and yet people still liked the car enough to purchase understanding that these features would come in the future. No matter though - I personally can't think of a situation where I'd use CC over ACC so I'll just be one of those happy volvo owners using ACC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
My problem with ACC is that the minimum distance from the car in front of me is just too far. I realize that it is calculated based on the speed you're going and that it's designed to be a "safe" distance back, but if I am in the fast lane in a fair amount of traffic and waiting to pass, I am too far back from the car in front of me and so people start trying to pass me. It just doesn't work for me in the environment where it is designed to work. I would much rather be able to use regular cruise control and have to tap the brake and press the button again to recall the previous cruise speed.

I see where it could be useful if you were a conservative, slow driver and just wanted to follow behind someone, but I drive fast.. And when I'm in the fast lane it really annoys me when I come up behind a car and a full 30ft+ behind the car it starts to slow me down. If you're trying to maintain a constant rate of speed you really have to pay attention because all of a sudden you could be going 68 instead of 75 because you are 40 feet behind the car in front of you. It's deceived me a few times and I just thought that the car in front of me sped up when in fact it had actually slowed down.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top