XC60 vs XC90
 

Thinking about purchasing either the xc60 or xc90, does anyone have preference over the either.

The car is for myself and my wife, no kids - yet. But probably within the year.

Obviously, the 90 is bigger (wider and more spacious) while the 60 has some nicer features (i.e., blue tooth actually integrated).

QUESTION

Does anyone own both and which one do you prefer?

How much quicker is the 3.0 Turbo over the 3.2 AWD on the 90.

I thought the 60 drove smoother than 90, but that could have been b.c I was in a new less driven vehicle. Any thoughts out there?

Thank you in advance.

Jason

Can't wait to drive a my new VOLVO

The obvious difference is the third row of seats do you need to carry 6 extra people in the XC90?
This cars chassis and dynamics are now 12 years old coming from the 1998 S80 basicly ...
The XC60 has more ground clearance and the vey latest chassis and dynamics and ground breaking safety systems ... so if you dont need the 3rd row of seats take a serious look at this ..

Tow
 

Thank you....

When it comes to towing, what does 3500 lbs actually equivocate to (i.e., is that two jet boats)?

thats ok ... the towing limit includes any braked trailer and load . ie the complete weight ...

do you mean jetskis? can't imagine how you'd tow two jetboats?!

a jetski weighs about 400kgs max, so even on a substantial trailer you'd easily be able to two skis.

XC90 vs XC60
 

Jason
Hope I'm not too late to help. I live in Australia.
We have owned both now. Our XC90 was purchased new in 2005 and we sold it a few days ago after purchasing a new XC60.
The 90 was a 2.5t with 5 speed auto, 7 seats and a good range of options.
It was tremendously reliable and had only one minor fault over 5 years.
The 7 seats worked brilliantly and it was great on long highway cruises - freeways/highways - able to carry 4 adults and 3 kids in comfort plus luggage (with a roof box when in 7 seat configuration). Always felt safe and ran well.
It was relatively economical on this type of journey getting about 10-11L/100KM, but quite uneconomical in urban driving with around 17L/100KM.
The other downer was the handling. Ponderous is a perfect word for it as it lurched around whenever we hit curved roads.

Our XC60 is a 2.4L twin turbo diesel with 6 speed auto. Highly optioned with satnav, reverse camera, great sunroof, auto bi-xenons, upgraded sound system, Bluetooth, brilliant leather internally, electric tailgate, 18" alloys, etc, etc, it is a simply brilliant vehicle. Almost as spacious inside for 5 passengers, although mid-rear seat really only for kids. Diesel consumption is outstanding using only about 60% the fuel of the XC90.
Can't really comment on reliability because we have only had it a few days.
Rear storage is very good with the vehicle width being basically identical to the 90 and around 20cm shorter, and somewhat lower.
Handling is a couple of classes above the 90 and it's not afraid to take a corner. Ride is quite good; not as compliant as a BMW, perhaps, but still more than acceptable for us.

If I had to choose between the two today, and I didn't need 7 seats, I would definitely choose the XC60.

It's a generation younger than the XC90, and it shows.

I would agree with the above. The 90 is/has been a very successful car for volvo but is beginning to show its age IMO. The 60 takes all the benefits of 90 (except the 7 seats) and has improved on them. The result a really good looking, safe and versatile premium car.

AntApo/ and with T6 it can bolt off the line if you need. :) It's more than capable to keep in line with smaller and nimble vehicles off the standing start till 60~70 KPH.
Yes the down side is the fuel consumption. On highway it can do 500+ KM but in town it manages around 360~370 km per tank...

few weeks back I took whole family to Lithgow for the Thomas day out and it was two hours of driving each way and it handled very well at varying speed/road conditions...

Thanks, dj898.

Quite happy with my 2010 D5 LE. Prior to test driving the XC60 for the first time I had no intention of buying the diesel and wanted either the T6 or the 3.2. The dealer convinced me to try both petrol and diesel - which I did.

I was sold on the diesel after the first drive. Plenty of go, superior economy, more range and, I believe, the resale should be better also.

My vehicle is currently telling me I'm getting just under 11L/100KM in urban driving which means I should do 600KM with a 70L tank. I will doing about 600KM on a drive to the Wimmera this weekend and I would expect consumption to drop to around 7L/100KM which means 1000KM in the tank.

While I'm here I'll ask a question of anyone who can possibly help. My satnav doesn't show the names of streets as I approach them. It provides the name of the street I am on but not those ahead of me that intersect. Does anyone know if this can be rectified? The thing seems to be able to give me banks, cafes, hotels, petrol stations, supermarkets, etc, etc, but not street names, which seems silly. Could be wrong though.

I will have to watch the sat-nav next time I driver missus xc60 then.
Can't recall whether hers does or not but then we normally follow the voice guidance with few occasional glance when approaching busy intersection.

for T6 missus was dead set against the diesel so didn't have much choice really.
Well since it's me who fill up and pay the bill at the petrol station on Tuesday night at 10pm guess it doesn't matter to her...