2016 Volvo XC90 Pros and Cons: Why (Not) This Car?

	Compared to the MDX
Interior styling	Better Worse

The new XC90's exterior attractively updates the brand's traditional brick without being as swoopy as some recent Volvo sedans. The surfaces are much more complex than they appear at first glance. But every curve and transition has been so artfully integrated that no particular detail grabs the eye. Instead, they form a quietly upscale whole that simply looks right. It doesn't hurt that the new XC90 is proportioned much better than most vehicles with sideways engines. Though the XC90 is only 1.2 inches longer than the Acura MDX (194.8 vs. 193.6), its wheelbase is 6.5 inches longer (117.5 vs. 111.0), yielding much tighter overhangs.

The standard wheels are 19 inches in diameter on the base trim, and 20s on the R-Design (sport model) and Inscription (luxury model). These can be upgraded to 20s on the base model, 22s on the R-Design, and 21s (as on the tested vehicle) on the Inscription. For the best dressed box, get the R-Design in "bursting blue metaliic" with the 22s.

The real design story, though, is inside the new XC90. My first impression upon sitting inside one at the Detroit auto show back in January 2015:"Wow, this interior is fantastic." I was blown away.

The XC90 might be much less expensive than its European competitors, but you'd never guess this after sitting inside them. Inside the top-of-the-line XC90 Inscription, leather covers nearly every surface that isn't covered by matte-finished walnut. The hides on the seats and armrests feel luxuriously soft to the touch.

Beyond materials, the XC90's interior styling exudes good taste in the modern-yet-warm Scandanavian way. Large LCD panels for the instruments and infotainment interface push the edge of current tech, leaving the center stack nearly button-free, without engaging in visual gimmickry. No detail appears to have escaped thorough consideration by talented designers. Every review of the new XC90 seems to mention the gnurling on the "engine start" knob and drive mode selector, and this one apparently won't break the pattern.

The Acura MDX's interior approaches the Volvo's in neither design nor materials. Despite (or perhaps because of) plenty of shiny fake wood, it's a relatively pedestrian, even antiseptic place in which to spend time. For a combination of style and materials, it's possible that only the Range Rover Sport compares, and it's nearly 50 percent more expensive.

Feature availability

Better Worse

The new Volvo XC90 also manages to match European competitors in terms of features. If you can get a feature on an Audi, BMW, or Mercedes-Benz crossover, you can probably get it on the new XC90 as well. The tested car had them all: four-corner air suspension, steering-linked LED headlights (complete with "Thor's hammer" running lights), panoramic sunroof, LCD instrumentation, head-up display, four-zone automatic climate control, heated-and-ventilated 16-way front seats with memory, heated steering wheel, heated rear seats, around-view camera system, front-and-rear obstacle detection, automated parking system, full-speed-range adaptive cruise control, lane keep assist, and a full array of collision warning systems.

In low-speed stop-and-go traffic a "pilot assist" function can be called on to manage the steering, acceleration, and braking at speeds up to 30 mph as long as there's a car driving under 30 mph ahead of you and the lane markings are clearly visible. While I don't encounter such conditions in my driving, if you commute in heavy traffic you might love this feature.

One odd omission: the XC90's steering column adjusts manually. Another: unlike in the Germans you cannot get an audio system from that other Scandanavian icon, Bang & Olufsen. But then B&O is Danish, not Swedish. Instead, Volvo offers a 1400-watt, 19-speaker Bowers and Wilkins audio system for about half as much as B&O systems with merely 1200 watts and 14-to-16 speakers cost in the Germans.

Acura doesn't offer nearly as many high-end features on the MDX. Load up both vehicles, and the Volvo ends up with over $7,000 in additional content.

Price or payments

Better Worse

I don't often include price among the reasons to buy a vehicle that starts at $50,795 and that can top $65,000, especially not a European one, but the new Volvo XC90 proves an exception. You're essentially getting a vehicle with high-end engineering, a high-end interior, and high-end features for just a little more than the semi-premium Acura MDX. A nearly all-in XC90 T6 Inscription might list for $10,055 more than the MDX Advance, but it includes over $7,000 in additional content, for a feature-adjusted difference of about $2,700. Move to the other extreme, and an XC60 T6 Momentum lists for $5,010 more than a base MDX, but the feature-adjusted difference is around $2,000. Specify nav as the only required feature on both, and the sticker prices are just a little more than $1,000 apart, and the feature-adjusted difference only about $600.

A 2017 Audi Q7 equipped like the loaded $67,955 test vehicle will list for nearly $85,000. A BMW X5 with the same boxes checked? Over $85,000. And a Mercedes-Benz GL-Class (GLS next year)? Deep into the nineties--but at least with it you get a considerably larger, roomier vehicle.

Fuel economy

Better Worse

The old Volvo XC90's fuel economy was stuck in the early 2000s. When fitted with a 311-horsepower 4.4-liter V8 (last offered for 2011) its EPA ratings were 13 mpg city, 19 mpg highway. The 240-horsepower 3.2-liter inline-six that powered all first-generation XC90s in recent years managed little better, 15/21.

The new XC90 is a couple hundred pounds lighter than the original one, and its only engine is a 2.0-liter four-cylinder. Two liters doesn't sound like nearly enough to motivate 4,400 pounds of all-wheel-drive crossover? Well, this particular engine happens to be both supercharged and turbocharged (the former to avoid the lag usually associated with a large, high-boost-pressure turbo) to the tune of 316 horsepower, five more than the old V8. The payoff: EPA ratings of 20 mpg city, 25 mpg highway. The highway figure is lower than that of the MDX (26), but the city figure is the best for a gasoline-powered fancy-brand three-row crossover.

The trip computer averages during my week with the new XC90 largely confirmed these ratings. With a light foot in the suburbs I observed up to 27 mpg, a couple better than the Acura. Averages around 23 were common. Make frequent use of the boost and the trip computer average sinks as low as 14 mpg, but drive competitors similarly and they guzzle at least as much gas.

Want even better fuel economy? Volvo will soon offer the above engine in conjuction with electric motors that bump total output to 400 horsepower. EPA ratings for the T8 hybrid haven't yet been announced, but they're expected to be impressive. Plus it will be possible to plug in the XC90 T8 then drive it about 17 miles on electricity alone. The downside? The T8 will cost $11,800 more than the T6 even after factoring in a $4,600 tax credit. Fuel savings alone won't justify this bump.

Safety & braking

Better Worse

Why hasn't the attribute most closely associated with the Volvo brand, safety, come up yet? Not because the new XC90 didn't test well. It earned top ratings in all of the IIHS tests. The thing is, so have many competitors, including the Acura MDX. Volvo figured out a while ago that a large advantage in safety wasn't sustainable--once other manufacturers made it a top priority, they'd catch up--so it has been seeking other strengths, such as interior design.

This said, the new XC90's driving aids function very well. Usually I feel the need to deactivate lane departure prevention systems. They tend to cut in too early and obtrusively. Not the Volvo's. Somehow it steers the XC90 back toward the center of the lane without making the steering feel weird. I left it on most of the time.

	Compared to the MDX
Handling	Better Worse

The cons of the new XC90 T6 aren't nearly as noteworthy as its strengths unless you're seeking something the Volvo simply isn't. To begin, the XC90 handles competently, with good stability and moderate lean in hard turns, but doesn't deliver anything resembling fun. The weight of the steering and the firmness of the adaptive dampers (included with the $1,800 air suspension) can be customized, but setting them to "dynamic" only takes the XC90 to the edge of sporting.

In comparison, the Acura MDX handles much more like a well-tuned upscale sedan. It feels lower to the ground (perhaps because it is), its steering is more naturally weighted, and it simply drives better. I didn't like looking at the Acura nearly as much, but I enjoyed driving it more.

If you want a fine-handling SUV but want a nicer-than-Acura badge or interior, then check out the Range Rover Sport. I much preferred the RRS's handling to that of the BMW X5. But your pockets better be deep.

Powertrain performance

Better Worse

Volvo's decision to limit engine size to 2.0 liters going forward is a gutsy one. Conventional wisdom suggests that such a small engine can't possibly feel sufficient in a 4,400-pound SUV. But the Volvo engine, with an especially strong midrange (295 lb-ft of torque at 2,200 rpm), feels easily up to the task.

Yet I prefer the relatively conventional (3.5-liter V6 with no boost), less powerful (290 horsepower), less torquey (267 lb-ft at 4,500 rpm) Acura MDX engine. Though the Volvo engine's supercharger and turbocharger are good team players, this complicated combination cannot deliver power as smoothly and linearly as the Acura V6. Plus, when revved the Volvo engine sounds like the four-cylinder that it is. The Acura V6 sings a much more thrilling song. Finally, despite similar power-to-weight ratios on their specs sheets, the Volvo takes an extra second or so to get to 60 mph (figure mid-7s vs. low-6s).

The 8-speed automatic transmission in the Volvo and the 9-speed automatic transmission in the Acura both occasionally fail to finesse a shift. Some people might be bothered by how they do what they do. Most won't notice anything untoward.

Want a quicker, more effortless XC90? Then spend the extra cash for the upcoming T8. With 400 horsepower and 472 lb-ft of electrically boosted torque, the XC90 T8 "Twin Engine" Plug-in Hybrid should provide the immediate, smooth responses and ultra-quick acceleration that the T6 doesn't quite manage. Perhaps this plus the fuel savings will justify its much higher price.

	Compared to the MDX
Ride smoothness	Better Worse

Even with its optional ($1,800) air suspension set to "comfort," the Volvo XC90 feels overly firm over some bumps. Setting the suspension to "dynamic" makes the impacts slightly harder, but improves body control, so I usually preferred this setting. The Acura rides a little more smoothly, with less of the slight pitching and rocking that tends to afflict even expensive SUVs (laws of physics and all that). But the much more expensive Mercedes-Benz GL-Class does not--its ride could be the bumpiest of the bunch.

Also to the Volvo's credit: I didn't sense the mass of its 21-inch wheels as they worked their way across bumps and chuckholes--a common issue in cars fitted with large, heavy wheels.

Front seat support & comfort

Better Worse

Volvos have long been renowned for seat comfort, and the new XC90's 16-way power-adjustable front seats largely live up to this reputation. Adjustments include cushion length, side bolster spread, and four-way lumbar. The Acura's less adjustable seats are neither as comfortable nor as supportive in hard turns.

This said, I couldn't adjust the Volvo's seats to fit my particular form especially well. Even with the side bolsters cranked in all the way they were a little too widely spaced for my personal build (5'9", 165 lbs.). Plus I kept fiddling with the four-way lumbar all week. They still felt comfortable to me, just not unusually so.

The multi-contour seats in the BMW X5 and the Mercedes-Benz GL-Class are more comfortable, and the latter even include an effective massage feature. Sadly, you'll get no Swedish massage from the Volvo. But the BMW and Mercedes are also far more expensive than the Volvo, so is it fair to expect the Volvo's seats to be as good?

Rear seat room & comfort

Better Worse

The new Volvo XC90's second row seat is about as roomy and about as comfortable as most others in the class, standing out in neither manner. The bench can slide back and forth about six inches.

The XC90's third-row seat is a little roomier and more comfortable than the Acura's, and it's far superior to that in the BMW X5. It's still not somewhere adults would want to spend more than a few minutes, though. If you need an adult-friendly third row, try to find the extra cash for the larger, roomier Mercedes GL-Class.

Cargo capacity

Better Worse

The Volvo XC90's relatively boxy shape pays off in cargo capacity. Fold both rows and the resulting floor is seven feet long. The Acura's floor is just as long, but its ceiling is lower and slopes more toward the rear. The result: the Volvo hsa more cargo volume, 86 to 68 cubic feet.

With both rows up in the XC90 there's about as much space behind the third as you'll find in the Acura or the Mercedes, so about average. You shouldn't expect to fit both a large family and its luggage in the vehicle at the same time. It would help if the floor could be removed behind the third row to open up a deep, flat-floored well, as in the new Honda Pilot.

The tailgate does open very high, perhaps because Swedes are often tall.

Controls and instruments

Better Worse

A bit more on the new Volvo XC90's interior styling, but with more of a focus on functionality. Though the 2016 XC90 is available with a vast array of features, and many of these can be customized, you'd never guess this from the nearly button-free instrument panel. Nearly everything is handled through the large, portrait-oriented touchscreen. Since this touchscreen uses an array of infrared sensors to detect finger position, it can be operated even with gloves on.

While this reliance on a touchscreen could have been a disaster, as it has been in vehicles from other manufacturers, in the XC90 it works pretty well (in addition to looking great until it gets smudged up). For anything beyond the most basic commands you have to take your eyes off the road and swipe and/or tap multiple times, a potentially dangerous distraction. But the Volvo interface is better designed than most, including Acura's confusing dual-screen setup. With more of a phone-like look and feel than any others I've experienced, it has an elegance that most lack. The virtual buttons are sufficiently large and are usually adequately spaced. The swiping and tapping can even be fun--but this isn't the sort of fun it's safe to have while driving. I'd much rather channel surf via a dedicated old-style tuning knob.

As is usually the case with a complicated, multi-layered interface, learning all of the ins and outs of the Volvo's requires a considerable amount of learning. Many owners will never discover many of the things that can be done. As far as I could tell, I was the first reviewer to dig into the settings (swipe downward near the top of the screen to summon them) and configure the Individual driving mode. This mode wasn't even activated when I received the test vehicle, which had over 8,000 miles on it.

I tried using the voice recognition system to enter a navigation destination. This did not go well, and after a few tries I gave up.