New 2011 Volvo Specifications

[Teejay1]

Originally Posted by Daleman

I for one wish they had left the 2.4 drivE as a 2.4

Me too but alas its not to be , I asked my wife does she want more engine or more comfort and equipment, she said to the engine since she's buying it, for me to drive, I have to go with her wishes.

[Daleman]

I was noticing that What Car on test only managed to get a 0-60 time out of the XC60 2.4 drivE of 10.4 second whereas Volvos claim was 9.3 for the 0-60 sprint.

Top speed for the DrivE 2.4 was 123 mph as against Volvos claimed 127.


This makes me wonder if Volvos claimed times are a bit optimistic even for the old 2.4drivE so can we believe the new claimed times for the D3 2.0 drivE that seem to be similar figures to the actual figures What Car obtained out of the old 2.4drivE.


Only some actual testing by an independent motoring magazine will probably establish the truth but I see a slightly optimistic trend in Volvos figures that is worrying for anyone being sold a D3 drivE 2.0 that was expecting a 2.4 drivE!

[XC60nick]

Originally Posted by Teejay1

since she's buying it, for me to drive

Could I ask how you managed that one? ... Respect Fella...!!!

[Skypilot617]

Originally Posted by ChrisE

Towing Limits

Ford Kuga 2000/2100kg
Hyundai Santa Fe/ Kia Sorento 2500/2000kg
Mitsubish Shogun 3000/3500kg
Toyota Land Cruiser 3000kg
BMW x3 ?
Audi Q5 ?

Where there are two figures this will be either 2wd/4wd or manual/auto.

As I said the 1600kg is very low.

The XC60 is a crossover 4x4 and can't tow large twin axles or horseboxes (unless empty!). It can happily tow a large single axle caravan around 1500kgs.

The Ford Kuga weights above are misleading. On the 85% rule a Kuga can only tow just under 1400 Kgs. The 1600kgs quoted for the 2wd XC60 is more realistic - but for that sort of tow I'd go for the d5 AWD myself.

[ChrisE]

Originally Posted by Skypilot617

The Ford Kuga weights above are misleading. On the 85% rule a Kuga can only tow just under 1400 Kgs. The 1600kgs quoted for the 2wd XC60 is more realistic - but for that sort of tow I'd go for the d5 AWD myself.

This is a never ending debate. Many years ago 85% kerb weight was decided upon as a recommended towing limit by goodnesss knows who & for no particular reason. Even for new drivers the limit os 100% kerb weight or manufacturers limit - whichever is lower. For older drivers it is the manufacturers recvommended limit.

Personally I would be propared to tow a heavy & low 4 wheel trailer but only a much lighter single axle caravan. 1600kg would probably be my caravan limit for either the Volvo D3 or the Kuga.

I take manufacturers figures to be the ability of the car to get the load moving on a slope and to be a measure of the mechanical strength of the vehicle. In the case of the Volvo this was most peculiar in the 2010 range where the 2.4D was 1500kg manual but 2000kg automatic. Unless they assume we are all totally inadequate with the clutch this must surely indicate doubt about something in the manual drive train.

I agree the D5 is the much better bet. I just feel that for 2011 Volvo had considerably reduced the number of buyers for whom the 2wd cheaper alternative is the sensible choice. This is a real pity.

[Skypilot617]

Originally Posted by ChrisE

This is a never ending debate. Many years ago 85% kerb weight was decided upon as a recommended towing limit by goodnesss knows who & for no particular reason. Even for new drivers the limit os 100% kerb weight or manufacturers limit - whichever is lower. For older drivers it is the manufacturers recvommended limit.

Personally I would be propared to tow a heavy & low 4 wheel trailer but only a much lighter single axle caravan. 1600kg would probably be my caravan limit for either the Volvo D3 or the Kuga.

The 85% 'rule' is but a guide but one born out of experience. I'm towing at about 90% at present but would prefer to get it down a bit which is why I'm looking at the XC60. For all drivers the absolute limit is the legal 100% - which means the Kuga can only just tow a 1600Kg van legally, whist the XC60 would still be close to the 85% rule

I agree that there is something fishy about the Volvo weight limits - especially the reduction to 75Kg noseweight on only the 2009 D5 manually. Many modern caravans have noseweights around 85kg even when empty - the only way to reduce it is then by dodgy rear end loading.

[ChrisE]

Originally Posted by Skypilot617

For all drivers the absolute limit is the legal 100% - which means the Kuga can only just tow a 1600Kg van legally, whist the XC60 would still be close to the 85% rule

It is not that simple. If you took your driving test before 1st Jan 1997, or later if you have passed a seperate B+E test, you hold a B+E licence which, I believe, removes the "trailer weight must not exceed car kerb weight" limit that would otherwise apply.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring...es/DG_10013073

or perhaps better explained

http://www.driveandtow.co.uk/80215/info.php?p=5

I am also an experienced tower (40 years) & I know exactly what you are saying about safe towing. I also tow at about 85% kerbweight & would like to keep it that way. Some of the outfits that you see on the road horrify me. It would not, however, worry me as much to connect a 2 axle car trailer that exceeded kerb weight as it would to do the same with a caravan, even if both were within the manufacturers towing limit.

Having said all this the manufacturers towing limits are not given for no purpose & the XC60 2wd limits are still low in comparison to similar vehicle. Whether this is a mechanical issue or whether Volvo measure their towing limit more conservatively I don't know.

[Teejay1]

Originally Posted by XC60nick

Could I ask how you managed that one? ... Respect Fella...!!!

It's easy really she can't drive, and wants a nicer car.

[Teejay1]

Originally Posted by Daleman

I was noticing that What Car on test only managed to get a 0-60 time out of the XC60 2.4 drivE of 10.4 second whereas Volvos claim was 9.3 for the 0-60 sprint.

Top speed for the DrivE 2.4 was 123 mph as against Volvos claimed 127.


This makes me wonder if Volvos claimed times are a bit optimistic even for the old 2.4drivE so can we believe the new claimed times for the D3 2.0 drivE that seem to be similar figures to the actual figures What Car obtained out of the old 2.4drivE.


Only some actual testing by an independent motoring magazine will probably establish the truth but I see a slightly optimistic trend in Volvos figures that is worrying for anyone being sold a D3 drivE 2.0 that was expecting a 2.4 drivE!

Is it done carrying a full tank of fuel? SE or SE LUX? Change gear when they are supposed to or red-line it ?
Is it done for real on a test track in perfect weather conditions or in a sterile lab along with the fictitious mpg figures?

These simple differences are enough to explain the discrepancy.

[ChrisE]

0-60 times & alike benefit from a bit of analysis. I know little about the reliability of Volvo figures but I do know that the Chrysler 300C figures have deteriorated considerably in the 2010 catalogue even though the car has not changed. Chryslers explanation is apparantly that they time a particular car, which is a latest production example & which is not the same one that was timed previously & then publish the time that they get.

How they get these times might give cause for a moments thought.......

Imagine you are sitting at the traffic lights with the engine on full throttle on the rev limiter, you dump the clutch & let the revs build to maximum. You then stab the clutch in as quickly as possible & grab (snatch as quickly as your arm will move) the next gear before slipping your foot off the clutch pedal. Repeat for the other gears. Gearboxes & clutches are disposable items if treated this way & may only last a very few attempts. Nobody treats their own car this way unless on a drag strip & thus nobody can achieve the published times.

In an automatic the revs build against the footbrake, the foot is slid off the brake and the manual override is used to change gear at maximum revs. The car is virtually no slower if the gearbox changes itself. Most owners can push the throttle to the floor & that is all that is required. No fuss, no damage & the published times.

I remember LJK Setright writing about this many years ago & explaining why in the real world automatics often can out accelerate manuals even though the published figures would suggest otherwise.

30-50 type times are similar. In a manual not many drivers select the gear that gives 4000+ revs & accelerate from there as described above - most change down the odd gear perhaps & apply throttle. Automatics change gear to one which fits the speed/ throttle & go from there in the correct gear. Again this is often much quicker in the real world.

Automatic haters talk about "being in control" etc but unless you are a racing driver this is likely to be meaningless.