Order now or wait for Mild Hybrid?

[DangerMUK]

Yeah I have to say I had a D5 XC60 R-Design Pro loan car for 4/5 days and I didn't find it at all clattery like some other similar diesels.

An I6 or a V6 is going to be slightly to significantly smoother, but that's a completely different engine type.

I do wish that Volvo would at least over slightly bigger engines but I'm guessing that boat has sailed now anyway, even if it was for platform reasons.

[redbuta]

Exactly.

I have friends working on smart grid, batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, fuel cell carbon captures. The pathways and roadmaps are set, the driving forces are there. We will just follow that rather than trying to jump steps.

For instance, you'd think Hydrogen is generated by electrolysis, using electricity generated from renewable energy, happening quietly in the evening, managed by smart grid technologies.

Not exactly. Current world production - only 2Mt are from electrolysis. 50Mt are from fossil fuels... (e.g. 24 Mt made from Nature gas reforming...)

They need more time to phase out IC engine technologies... Especially when nuclear power stations are not being renewed quick enough.

However, more rapid reform (forcing people) to change driving habit is well underway. No one can stop it.

I believe Volvo has been very smart on their moves in the past decade - mild hybrid may be a necessary thing if you live in London.

And it seems I've just said nothing at all in this post...

Originally Posted by Haldex

And that’s that. Nicely said. I’ll just add- electric range comparable to petrol/diesel cars will not happen in our lifetime. Charging times will remain 10x the time needed to refuel a fossil burning car- and that’s pure physics (transfer of energy without transferring mass..). Price of electricity can only go one way with the increasing demand, etc, etc. As such- electrics will remain pricey toys for the rich with their purpose limited to commuting to/from a golf club..

[Quacker]

Originally Posted by Deman77

I don’t think Toyota hybrid is mild - they are proper battery (triple digit voltage) and decent bhp electric engine. Mild hybrids are just glorified starter motors with 48v battery. It’s quite impressive if they can get 15% improvement out of that. But the biggest advantage of course is the instant torque from standstill and smoother driving experience. If Mercedes reviews are to be believed it works quite well.

The new RAV4 hybrid has a 2.5 litre petrol engine running the Atkinson cycle, so built for economy not torque or ultimate power. It is direct injection.

The battery is only a tiny 1kW/hour useable, but the engine and generator can supply over 50hp to the rear. Now I suspect, since the battery is so small, that if 54hp is supplied to the rear motor, then most of that power will come direct from the generator if for more than a few seconds. This means, of course, that it uses the petrol engine to provide that power. In which case, all the pundits that add 54hp to the engine output are quite wrong. Or at least they are wrong if all 54hp is used at the back for more than a few seconds because the generator must consume power from the engine to provide it.

Yes, it is a very different setup to that of the Volvo and physically more like the T8 PHEV Volvo, but it has nothing like the battery capacity and does not and cannot plug-in to charge.

[Crockers]

If mild hybrid is £2k more than diesel; and diesel is £3k more than T5 my maths makes a B5 around £5k more than a T5.

That buys one hell of a lot of petrol.

[Sandj]

Thanks for all your comments.
I think we're going to go for the t5 and not wait.

The dealers are adamant that mild petrol hybrid will not be available and the price list that I've seen linked to on anther thread is not showing one. However the press release is showing one, we can only assume that the petrol hybrid week be available at a later date.

My husband is very much of the view that the mild hybrid is untested technology and doesn't want to buy at this stage.

Also we want to change our car now! We have waited from before Christmas for the release of the new toyota rav4 as we would have preferred to buy a hybrid car and of course the technology is proven but it was so noisy...

[Lexman8]

Originally Posted by Quacker

Mine must have better insulation.

Quite possibly. It seems to be mostly the early adopters that have a problem with engine (and tyre) noise. I've had a couple of more-recent loan cars which are noticeably quieter than mine. It seems that Volvo have fitted more/better insulation in later cars without publicising it.

[MaDProFF]

Just remember Dealers and generally anyone in a car manufacture structure will be the last person to know about models coming onto the market, or to tell the general public.

Though personally I would not buy a mild hybrid either.

[familymangreg]

Originally Posted by Haldex

Are you seriously comparing V6s and 4-pots?..

Yes, that is exactly what I'm doing, and I am absolutely aware that a 6 cylinder engine is going to be a lot smoother and more refined, my three previous cars were 6 cylinders.

But this is my point, other manufacturers are still putting them in large SUVs, where Volvo have gone down the 4 pot route, and in my opinion, they are not suited particularly well to the large XC90, the D5 only has adequate performance and it has to be pushed hard to make progress, which makes it sound noisy, not at all sweet and particularly strained.

Agree with points made by others in this thread, I think Volvo have improved noise insulation, as I had a MY18 loaner a year ago and that did sound quieter.

The D5 is intrinsically not a bad engine, but there are far better suited engines in large SUVs.

Honestly, the refinement in all of the Discovery 5, Touareg, Q7 and A6 seemed like they were 10 years in development ahead of the XC90, and all noticeably quite a bit more powerful and quicker. And what's more, if you read long term reviews and real mpg data, they would all appear to be more efficient too!

:wq

[Quacker]

Originally Posted by MaDProFF

Just remember Dealers and generally anyone in a car manufacture structure will be the last person to know about models coming onto the market, or to tell the general public.

Though personally I would not buy a mild hybrid either.

If I was going to change car over the next 12 months I would seriously look at Volvo and Land Rover/Range Rover mild hybrids. As long as they don't do something silly like fit smaller fuel tanks, the driving range will extend by the same percentage as the fuel economy improvement. So the XC90 with its 15 gallon useable tank gets me a safe 585 miles today will extend its safe range to around 675 miles. That's on only 15 gallons/68 litres of fuel.

I remember my old MkI Golf GTi had only about a 250 mile range, which meant finding fuel on the return journey between Aberystwyth and Coventry. An XC90 diesel mild hybrid could just about manage there and back twice before needing to refill. That's assuming the Golf did 30mpg and the Volvo mild hybrid did 45mpg [as opposed to the 39 I currently get with the D5 on that journey]

Improvement over time is incremental but you can see just how much things have improved when you compare the Golf, which was actually incredibly economical compared to my previous carburettor cars, which weighed less than 1 ton with today's 7 seater 2 ton behemoth that has literally twice the horsepower and a faster 0-60 time, yet [with hybrid] should do 45mpg. Not only that but the exhaust gas from today's car is almost infinitely cleaner than early 1980's cars. It would probably take nearly 500 Volvo XC90's to be as polluting as a single fuel injected Golf GTi of 1982 and nearer 1000 XC90's to pollute as much as a carbureted 2 litre from the 1970's.
That's before you even start to consider the sulphur and lead that was part of the fuel.
Sorry, all that is just something that struck me from looking back compared to where we are now.

Fuel use today? Setting aside the dodgy politics, both local City politics and national, the current generation of Diesel engines are as clean as current petrol engines but consume quite a bit less fuel. So outside cities, where pure electric cars may be preferable to either, things other than exhaust cleanliness should lead buying decisions. Some petrol vehicles, like the new mild hybrid Honda CR-V may well make a lot of sense for almost everyone, because they get similar economy to my diesel CR-V, so it's a win-win for the petrol/hybrid. Even so, for myself, because I have the convenience of fuel storage at home, clean diesel and diesel hybrid makes a whole lot of sense. Each to their own.

[Quacker]

Originally Posted by familymangreg

Y
The D5 is intrinsically not a bad engine, but there are far better suited engines in large SUVs.

Honestly, the refinement in all of the Discovery 5, Touareg, Q7 and A6 seemed like they were 10 years in development ahead of the XC90, and all noticeably quite a bit more powerful and quicker. And what's more, if you read long term reviews and real mpg data, they would all appear to be more efficient too!

:wq

Don't let them kid you. They all have around the same fuel economy. Most will be around 30mpg in real life with a best of 33 to 35mpg.
My XC90 D5 averages 38mpg and on a long fast journey usually does 39. It commonly achieves 42+ mpg driven in normal summer traffic i.e. 'steadily'. A friend's V6 Merc GLS seven seater never betters 35mpg and is usually sub30.
The A6 will certainly do better than the SUV's but I have no idea how a V or S90 compares with something like that.