[phil17]

My list was:

- BMW X3. I like it and it's significantly cheaper here in Canada. Wife doesn't like the styling so no go.
- GLC, Great car but styling doesn't do it for me. We also had a GLK prior to the Volvo (awesome car) and our other car is a c43 so wanted something diff
- F pace/Discover sport - noisy on test drive and int material seemed really bad so we crossed it off
- Q5 - didn't bother this time. Had an A4 prior to the C43 and it started chugging engine oil when it was only month's old. Dealer said it was normal and to have a bottle handy to top up. I'm sure the new Q5's are better but i'm not a fan of the styling anymore

XC60 was the winner mainly because it closely meets/exceeds the other makes's strengths but excels in safety. Can't say no to that when the wife's the daily driver with the kid

 

[rodrigofalvarez]

for 2018 models:

- Macan S: + best driving dynamics, - dated electronics, - no Android Auto, - dated interior style, - price when all options considered, - gas only
- AMG GLC43: + best ride, - dated electronics, - no Android Auto, - dated interior style, - don't like exterior, - price when all options considered, - gas only
- SQ5: + good driving dynamics, + electronics, - gas only, - harsher ride
- FPace: + exterior design, + interior design, - no Android Auto, - gas only
- Model X: + gasless commute, +interior design, - no Android Auto, - not good enough in TX for long road trips, - hate Tesla exterior design

Ended up with an XC60 T8. A year later, super happy.

 

[sergjut14]

Only the XC90, as we had the 2016 XC90 R-Design and chose the XC60 R-Design because we wanted to downsize and didn't want the 3rd row... We're extremely satisfied with the performance, ride and comfort and just miss some of the extras that were left out and were included in the 2016 XC90 R-Design... As the commercial says, "No Regerts"

 

[Husker4theSpurs]

We looked at (whether seriously or not):

Acura RDX - was just showing up to dealerships when we were deciding so felt we owed it to look at it. A nice value, but not what we wanted.

BMW X3 - same as above (just arriving), but we had just had a BMW and were looking for something different. Loved the 360 cam and gesture control.

Lexus RX - didn't seriously consider; a bit large for us this time around and Apple Car Play being unavailable was kind of a deal.

Jaguar F-Pace - probably the 2nd place for us mostly because of the availability of the diesel. Love the exterior and a lot of the interior but didn't feel as luxury as we'd hoped inside and the infotainment system is just kind of a mess. Reliability was a concern as well, but the longer warranty and the fact we won't keep the car that long made it not a deal. Again, no car play.

Audi Q5 - despite the numbers, just felt a lot smaller in the rear seat than the others.

Mercedes GLC - just didn't seem that exciting or premium imho.

 

[umf]

Mercedes GLC

XC90

 

[Mellow Guy]

In 2016 I didn't see any plug-in hybrid to compete with the XC90 T8. I had a Toyota Highlander hybrid which gave me some performance advantages (AWD and regenerative braking). Tesla was at the time to expensive and didn't have a network of charging stations. I don't want to give up the cargo capacity making the Tesla model 3 inadequate but I'll look at the new Tesla SUV when it comes out.

 

[MatchStick]

I looked at the Stelvio Ti Sport. It's way faster but still a pretty uneven package for a luxury car brand or at least a car at the close to $60k price point.

 

[Chris60]

edited

 

[cohall]

Audi SQ5
Jaguar F-Pace
Range Rover Velar
Land Rover Discovery
Porsche Macan
Mercedes GLC sportback
Mazda CX-5

 

[nokster]

I looked hard at the Audi SQ5, because I love the virtual cockpit and MMI system. My two previous cars were both Audi and I had loved driving them.
However, I had to consider that Audi did not do right by me after some issues with oil leaks and DSG in my last car, a 2013 S4 (bought new, sold it at 45k mi, 6 y/o).
On top of that, the value wasn't there. At the lease numbers I got for my nearly fully loaded XC60, the SQ5 was much less equipped. The value ultimately won me over.

I do miss the more immediate power of the supercharged V6 but the XC60 has more than enough for my typical needs. Really happy with my choice so far.

 

[cb62fcni]

I looked at the Stelvio Ti Sport. It's way faster but still a pretty uneven package for a luxury car brand or at least a car at the close to $60k price point.

Funny that the Stelvio was faster - it has considerably less horsepower and is only about 50lbs lighter than the T6, yet is nearly a half second faster to 60. Must be quite a bit of drivetrain inefficiencies is these SPA cars. I'm really tempted to drop my 20s for some 18s to improve mpg and performance. I've never really liked the look of the 20s anyway.

 

[ndotym]

This was no brainer, I've driven volvo's for 10 years my 2017 gave her life to save me, i'll always consider volvo 1st and last.

 

[volvoxc9008]

Funny that the Stelvio was faster - it has considerably less horsepower and is only about 50lbs lighter than the T6, yet is nearly a half second faster to 60. Must be quite a bit of drivetrain inefficiencies is these SPA cars. I'm really tempted to drop my 20s for some 18s to improve mpg and performance. I've never really liked the look of the 20s anyway.

It's the same with the new base BMW X5 40i with 335hp being as quick as the top of the range T8 XC90 with 400hp.

 

[Wayne T5]

Funny that the Stelvio was faster - it has considerably less horsepower and is only about 50lbs lighter than the T6, yet is nearly a half second faster to 60. Must be quite a bit of drivetrain inefficiencies is these SPA cars. I'm really tempted to drop my 20s for some 18s to improve mpg and performance. I've never really liked the look of the 20s anyway.

Torque and transmission play a greater role in 0-60 than hp.

 

[Magic Marker]

I'm seriously considering a 2016+ RX350/ RX450H. There's something about having hard buttons and a N/A 6cyl. Anyone disagree?

 

[Wayne T5]

I'm seriously considering a 2016+ RX350/ RX450H. There's something about having hard buttons and a N/A 6cyl. Anyone disagree?

No disagreement here. If you like the features, appearance, all of that subjective stuff then it sounds like a winner. I am always driving/ riding in one when I visit my father in law - it's a really nice car - pretty smooth, decent power, never breaks down. I think it's the state car in FL.

 

[cb62fcni]

Torque and transmission play a greater role in 0-60 than hp.

Transmission certainly does, that's why I pointed to drivetrain inefficiencies as the likely culprit. Bigger, heavier wheels are an obvious source of drivetrain inefficiencies.

As for whether torque or horsepower is more relevant in obtaining good 0-60 times, it is most certainly horsepower. The two are linked - HP=Torque*RPM/5252. The difference is HP takes into account peak RPM. If torque truly mattered, something like a modified Dodge Ram heavy duty with over 800ftlbs of torque would hold the 0-60 record, but alas, diesels tend to redline at a fraction of the RPM of a gasoline engine, so despite oodles of torque, their HP remains relatively low.

 

[Wayne T5]

Transmission certainly does, that's why I pointed to drivetrain inefficiencies as the likely culprit. Bigger, heavier wheels are an obvious source of drivetrain inefficiencies.

As for whether torque or horsepower is more relevant in obtaining good 0-60 times, it is most certainly horsepower. The two are linked - HP=Torque*RPM/5252. The difference is HP takes into account peak RPM. If torque truly mattered, something like a modified Dodge Ram heavy duty with over 800ftlbs of torque would hold the 0-60 record, but alas, diesels tend to redline at a fraction of the RPM of a gasoline engine, so despite oodles of torque, their HP remains relatively low.

We can agree to disagree. Well aware of how the two are linked but ask any expert and they will tell you that torque is more important than HP in acceleration. Your example of Dodge Ram is pretty ridiculous because it weighs around 6,500 lbs, so is at an extreme weight disadvantage is not exactly geared to accelerate rapidly but rather to haul.

Back to your original query - why is the Stelvio quicker? It has more torque, has a better transmission, and weighs a bit less.

 

[cb62fcni]

Right, intentionally ridiculous, due to the ridiculous amount of torque Cummins engines are capable of, so the Ram in this case would have nearly twice as much torque per pound of overall weight than a Stelvio or a XC60. Maybe a better way to put it is that torque is a measurement of force, whereas HP is a measurement of the the amount of force applied per unit of time. Thus, torque matters, but it doesn't directly relate to acceleration over any amount of time. It informs the HP curve, but unless you can sustain it into high RPM, you won't accelerate nearly as quickly as a similar vehicle that can. A car with 200 HP and 100 Ft Lbs will accelerate faster than one with 100 HP and 200 Ft Lbs if all other factors are kept the same.