When is AWD not AWD ?

[Kev78]

Originally Posted by RoyMacDonald

No need to get rude Kev.

I drove them back to back. Wasn't just my judgment. The whole family preferred the new XC90.

The problem I had with the Range Rover was that it was good on the move but when you stopped in traffic the standing fuel losses were awful. You could see the fuel gauge dropping. Also the suspension felt fine on the move but it drove me nuts going up and down every time I went through one of our field gates. To be fair the new XC90 goes up and down as well but not so much that you really notice. Also the Land Rover dealer here charges a £260 hour labour rate. Also the car did not fit me as well as the XC90 did so wasn't nearly as comfortable and the XC90 is much bigger and more spacious. Also the quality of the interior was way better than the Range Rover. The instruments were like they came from different centuries. Also I bought a V8 because I expected it to sound like one and the engine was so subdued that it could have been anything under the bonnet. The XC90 was the same in that respect and went just as well so what was the point in paying a fortune in fuel when there was almost no noticeable difference?

The only Corsa 1.6 litre with 220 bhp that I can find is a special edition rally car. How did you get that as a courtesy car?

I didn't mean to be rude. I just think there is no comparison. Obviously the Range Rover is going to use a lot of fuel being a 4.4 V8. Not a car for economy.

As for sound most V8's sound terrible due to the exhaust and noise regulations. Even the V8 M3's sound subdued without a aftermarket or BMW performance exhaust.

The corsa was a vxr. It was def 200bhp+ and was as bad as any other small capacity turbo engine. I was not happy when I got it as my previous courtesy car was a boxster S.

I also had a new gtc based on the insignia platform for a while. That was 180bhp 1.6 turbo. Suffered the same problems (not top end, 20 mpg) but handled very well for a fwd Vauxhall. I normally hate them.

2 litre turbos are nothing new and none have ever come close to delivering the mpg the claim unless you drive like a vicar and live somewhere without hills.

The new XC90 looks as blingy on the inside as it does on the outside and I was impressed with the interior on my short test drive.

But owners say the seat base is thin and they aren't as comfortable as the xc60. And there are a lot of quality issues that owners are complaining about.

Again I feel this points to cost saving and cutting corners.

I'm not a huge fan of land rovers due to their reliability and servicing costs TBH.

But a new Range Rover V8 is hard to beat for luxury, comfort and power. The suspension is sublime. I honestly think a xc90 D5 doesn't come close.

Sorry if I offended you as it wasn't my intention.

It does seems that some people would defend Volvo on here if they ditched engine and went Flintstones style.

I admire Saab for not changing their values when GMC owned them even though it led to their dimise.

It seems Volvo have sold out much easier. The new XC90 has nothing in common with previous Volvo's. It is a prime example of form before function. Volvo's used to be the opposite of that. Ugly as sin, but built like nothing else, functional and totally reliable.

[RoyMacDonald]

Originally Posted by Kev78

I didn't mean to be rude. I just think there is no comparison. Obviously the Range Rover is going to use a lot of fuel being a 4.4 V8. Not a car for economy.

As for sound most V8's sound terrible due to the exhaust and noise regulations. Even the V8 M3's sound subdued without a aftermarket or BMW performance exhaust.

The corsa was a vxr. It was def 200bhp+ and was as bad as any other small capacity turbo engine. I was not happy when I got it as my previous courtesy car was a boxster S.

I also had a new gtc based on the insignia platform for a while. That was 180bhp 1.6 turbo. Suffered the same problems (not top end, 20 mpg) but handled very well for a fwd Vauxhall. I normally hate them.

2 litre turbos are nothing new and none have ever come close to delivering the mpg the claim unless you drive like a vicar and live somewhere without hills.

The new XC90 looks as blingy on the inside as it does on the outside and I was impressed with the interior on my short test drive.

But owners say the seat base is thin and they aren't as comfortable as the xc60. And there are a lot of quality issues that owners are complaining about.

Again I feel this points to cost saving and cutting corners.

I'm not a huge fan of land rovers due to their reliability and servicing costs TBH.

But a new Range Rover V8 is hard to beat for luxury, comfort and power. The suspension is sublime. I honestly think a xc90 D5 doesn't come close.

Sorry if I offended you as it wasn't my intention.

It does seems that some people would defend Volvo on here if they ditched engine and went Flintstones style.

I admire Saab for not changing their values when GMC owned them even though it led to their dimise.

It seems Volvo have sold out much easier. The new XC90 has nothing in common with previous Volvo's. It is a prime example of form before function. Volvo's used to be the opposite of that. Ugly as sin, but built like nothing else, functional and totally reliable.

Must say I hadn't thought about the noise regulations being the reason both the V8's have not sounded how I expected and more boring than the old D5.

I can appear to defend Volvo regardless as mostly I do but when I think there is a real issue I'll be as critical as the next person.

I realise that personally you don't like the move to 4 cylinders and two litres, but for me I've lived with Volvo producing 1.8 and 2 litre engines for 40 years and as long as the cars accelerate well I'm happy. And they are much livelier now than they used to be. I particularlly like the new designs having bought the big estates for size not looks, but now they look pretty as well I'm not complaining.

I agree that the XC60 is an optionally comfortable long distance car and was the reason I sold my old XC90. The new tech just takes it to a whole new level. 560 miles and not feeling tired is exceptional in my book. I'm waiting to see what new XC90 owners say about long distance comfort, but unlike you I have seen favourable comments and it felt great to me on the three day test I gave it. I'm no great weight though. As the power to weight ratio was better than my XC60 it felt comparable to my XC60 with a bit more power. Interesting how it can be perceived so differently by ourselves though.

I should add my Range Rover was not one of the new aluminium chassis ones though. It was the last of the steel chassis ones. It did make me realise there was a level of running cost that I could afford but felt like a waste of money. I think if I had really liked it I wouldn't have traded it in for the XC60 though. The combination of 4C chassis and 17" wheels seemed better, and continues to do so, than the Range Rovers irritating air suspension. Just as comfortable on the road as well. Handles muddy fields fine as well.

[NigelDay]

I can echo a few of Roy's comments. We drive 400 miles down to our granddaughter in Plymouth, 360 of which is M6/M5. The ride comfort is wonderful and it is nice to get out at the other end and not feel tired (I do all the driving for my pleasure, and also Mrs D really doesn't like the thought of driving such a large car - compared to her Fiat Panda Cross). It simply eats the miles. Roy and a few others influenced me to get 4C and 'spec down' to 17" tyres. Now on 'A rated quiet' Nokian Weatherproofs and the laminated glass, it is very quiet. As for the engine, I find the D4 well-matched to the chassis, and the economy - 45mpg if I drive sensibly - is quite respectable. Actually better economy than the Panda !