General: Why so few manual xc90's

[Montymax]

Hello
Just wondering why there are so few manual xc90 around, they appear to be more econical, won't rev so high in gears unless you want it to. Won't have the hesitation pulling away like on early cars.

Please voice your opinion.

[A lex]

Because personally I couldnt imagine a worse match of a car/driving style to a manual gearbox!

XC90s (big SUVs in general) are all about the autobox!

[davidsmith1307]

Originally Posted by A lex

Because personally I couldnt imagine a worse match of a car/driving style to a manual gearbox!

XC90s (big SUVs in general) are all about the autobox!

That's fighting talk! Having driven both recently I found the manual box to be really nice. Transformed the car for me, and got rid of that odd resonance through the floor that 90s seem to have just before the box shifts up (163 and 185 engines).

Whether the weight of the car will mince the clutch in the long term is another issue.

[A lex]

I think its fair to say those who have the manual boxes obviously love them.

But the 'general' perception is that they are unloved in the '90. This is reinforced by both the residuals of the manual box cars and their overall rarity.

In fact outside of the UK im unsure if the manual box was even offered.

Me, personally, no thanks. Id hate to drive my 90 with a manual box.

[davidsmith1307]

Hill starts take a bit of practice with the foot parking brake and hand release!

[Tannaton]

I know I am "out-spoken" here but I like and prefer the manuals, you have much more control over what's going on and they are better for towing. A part of that may be because I have a early car with the 163 engine and 5-speed auto - which is to be honest I think the cars Achilles Heel - it's just slightly to heavy a car for than engine with that gearbox. You have to bear in mind also that automatic diesels are much more common now, back in 2002/2003 when the XC90 was developed they weren't as common.

Add to that they are more economical and faster - I have very little confidence to overtake in my XC90 which is down to the "accelerate by post" feeling.

My dad used to have an '05 XC70 (163) auto and that wasn't great either, but he now has a '13 XC70 with the twin turbo engine and six speed box - that is a different animal completely - it's great!

So it's really down to personal preference - as A lex says it auto's are what these cars are about if you are using them for mile munching and business commuting and stop/start traffic. But for a working, towing car - I'd have a manual and I wish I had held out for one.

[dave morton]

Always had manuals in the past but now I prefer the lazy drive of the auto, just point and shoot...

[Caldred1]

I have a 185 manual and you guessed it love it
Got the manual for towing the caravan
We did test drive the geartonic version but wasn't keen on the hesitation off the line
Also didn't fancy paying £440 road tax
Don't understand the issue with hill starts no issues with ours

Just test drove the new xc90 very impressed, very nice.

[RoscoMac]

Love my manual too... Drove an auto and didn't like the feeling of having to be on the gas all the time (maybe not explained it right) but felt it drinking the fuel ?!?

And the cheaper manual road tax )

[TruckbusUK]

Because the public buyers voted with their wallets and didn't buy them, if there had been strong demand then Volvo would have produced them in huge numbers.
Like all other manufacturers, for a "luxury" SUV the only way to go as demanded by the buyers was the autobox, RangeRover, BMW X5's, VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, Audi A6 Allroad and the awful Q7's etc. If what was required was a workhorse like the ubiquitous LandRover Defender or even the Discovery then it may have prevailed.

We have got what we have by simple purchasing power, no demand, no vehicles......simples!