rdollie

Yes, $60k would be too much (unless that's the price for the 650 hp version shown at SEMA this week.)

Fortunately Volvo is VERY aggressive in pricing strategies these days. The price for the V8 XC90 with some nice features included is $45,395:

http://www.swedespeed.com/news/publi...ticle_372.html

On top of that there will be Overseas Delivery pricing soon which will save thousands off this price and include a free mini-vacation for two. Given that the XC90 is Volvo's biggest seller and the top selling Euro SUV already I think they will do very well at this price level.

spwolf

I think even better question would be why spend 54k on XC90 V8 while you can get better equipped, RX400h which is faster and gets 10mpg more than XC90, for 3k less....

yaro1

the GX OWNS!

After driving in the car to Florida and back (NYC). You really get to know the car. I'm very happy to know the GX!

The massive appearance makes it stick out.

The relatively new design makes it unique.

The earth-shaking V8 ROAR is addicting.

The LEXUSisms are too awesome! (Quick-key-turn start, awesome Navi, Comfy, Quiet, SAFE)

There is no equal comparison in the segment...Perhaps even the market.

I can't get enough of this car.

Johnny Mo

Along with all other things mentioned...Forbes also rated it in top 10 highest residual value vehicles.

rdollie

If the RX size suits you its a more logical choice. Why drive around more vehicle than you need? That said, if you need more towing capacity, extra seating, or want the highest residual value of all SUVs the Volvo XC90 is still the better choice (it's also the only ULEVII V8 on the planet.) If you don't need the V8 power and acceleration (I haven't seen the 0-60 on the 400h but I'd be surprised if it's much better than the 6.9 second time for the XC90 V8) but need the other things stick to the 2.5T.

lonewolf69

Rdollie,

Forbes didn't mention the XC90 as one of it's top 10 vehicles with best residual value, but GX did. Also my 05' GX has ULEVII, so it's not the only V8 on the market with this certification.

Personally I was looking about both the XC90 and the Gx470. The XC90 has Volvo safety as a plus and also I LOVE the way ALL of the seats fold down flat!!!! But, in the end the Lexus name, NAV unit in dash (as opposed to POP up), and my G*D the LUXURIOUS interior won me over.

Both vehicles are excellent and you can't go wrong with either, some like coke, others like sprite... Life's too short to "argue" which car is better than the other!!!

rdollie

Actually the Volvo XC90 was cited as having the highest residual for SUVs by one source (ALG as I recall which is the bible used to set lease residuals) and it tied with the Mini for best residual for all vehicle classes:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...38/ai_n9507743

I definitely think the GX has more obvious luxury touches but a fully loaded XC90 holds it's own in typical understated Euro fashion.

Regarding the navigation - I guess that's a personal preference. I much prefer Volvo's physical implementation which keeps the hands on the steering wheel and the eyes on the horizon where they belong vs. traditional setups that take the eyes off the road and in some cases the hand off the wheel.

Regarding ULEVII, the Volvo V8 is cited as the first V8 to achieve ULEVII and I think it's newer than than the GX's engine so I don't think the GX's V8 has reached this level yet:

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...14/303081.html

Thanks.

-Russell

spwolf

actually, passing acceleration is considerably better in RX400h than in X5 4.4i, and probably Volvo too due to Electric motors providing instant torque. Try finding 50-70mph, 60-80mph passing times. Plus you should get a lot better mpg, for less money with hybrid. As to the emissions, eh, RX400h is an hybrid vehicle which is rated SULEV... and yes, GX470 has been rated U-LEV II, so maybe XC90 was first... volvo with the rating? :-).

As to the size, XC90 is more of an RX400 competitor than GX's. It is an car based SUV that starts at 35k. Interior wise, it is not close to being as luxurious as Lexus (that being RX or GX). GX is completly different game, and real truck unlike either RX or XC90.

Compared with V8 competitors, RX400h is an awesome choice.

lonewolf69

Rdollie,

Thanks for the info on ALG, good to know, as I've never picked up a car magazine/literature to save my life until I bought my LEXUS!!! Throughout high school and college, all my friends used to read, Motor Trend, Car & driver, etc..., talked about inline vs. v8, piston o-rings, blah, blah, blah.... Now talk to me about computers, Hard drives, Ram, CPU, Atari, Amiga, Mac, and PCs now that a whole other enchilada!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That said, that's is why I cited the Forbes and not ALG, as I had just finished reading about it in another thread.

FYI - The V8 engine in the XC90 is NOT a Volvo design, it was outsourced to and designed by Yamaha!!! I test drove this puppy and fell in love with this engine compared to the 2.5 5 Cylnder Turbo. Great engine, got to hand it to the Japanese!!!

SPWolf,

Loved the R400h concept, wish it was available for the GX....!!! The RX is a great platform but there wasn't enough room for my family, we needed the extra space that the GX had and the LX was overprice (IMHO) for the few difference between the GX and LX.

Bet you LOVE the fuel economy of the R400H, *SIGH* wish I there was a HYBRID GX... If it does EVER come out, I'm trading in!!!!

BTW, before anyone starts to "criticize" me about HYBRID costing more up front and that you'll NEVER be able to save enough on fuel to equal the cost, this is NOT an issue for me! I'm willing to pay the "premium" to help out the environment.and to save us from our dependence on OIL imports. So says the SUV driving "overweight" American!!!

rdollie

I don't have the data but the points about passing acceleration in a hybrid are probably valid. I did find the 0-60 on the RX400h is 7.24 seconds according to Edmunds.

I also did a side by side comparsion of these three vehicles at Edmunds. The Volvo has more interior space than the GX (93 cubic feet vs. 78 in cargo capacity), has higher payload capacity (1470 lbs. vs. 1329), but lower towing capacity (5000 lbs. vs. 6500 for GX.) The Volvo also has a longer wheelbase and higher ground clearance than the GX. The base model Volvo probably doesn't have as many luxury toys as the GX but I haven't compared. A loaded GX vs. a loaded XC90 is a good comparison as you can add many luxury toys to the Volvo to put it on the same level as a loaded GX40.

Any way you slice it the XC90 is definitely a GX competitor (it also offers more power with a base price thousands less.) Perhaps if I actually saw GX's being driven in off-road environments I would then say these two aren't competitors but since both are primarily asphalt queens these two are competitors (and for what it's worth the Volvo XC90 has beaten all comers for three years in a row in the Northwest Mudfest, won the Truck of Texas competition, etc. so it's got good off-road chops considering it isn't a truck with a dedicated low-range transfer case.)

spwolf

Park all 3 next to each other, and without any doubt you will know which vehicle belongs to which class. While XC90 and GX's might have similar size on the paper, that doesnt mean they are the same class. RX400h is only 1" smaller than XC90 and yet it has bigger boot (after 2nd row), and more leg room front and back among other things.

As to the off road credentials - GX got coveted best 4 wheeler award for 2 years in the row (2004, and 2005). It is an real truck, that drives OK on the road as well.

You can slice it and you can dice it as much as you like, but GX and XC90 have not much in common... On the other hand, RX and XC90 are true competitors, which is why all these mags compete them against each other. They are similar size, they use similar body structure, suspension, they have similar price.

RX is more luxurious while XC90 is slightly bigger and has 7 seats option...

GX is built after Land Cruiser Prado, truck with 55 yrs of trucking history. It has ladder frame, all time 4x4 drive with Torsen central differential and manually lockable center differential, low range box. It is an truck first and then on road vehicle.

While XC90 V8 has similar price and people might cross-shop them, it is really apples and oranges. It should and is compared daily by thousands of shoppers to RX...

bliksem

I test drove the XC90 and the GX when looking. I dont really care what the specs say, but the GX is significantly bigger inside then the XC90. The only place where the XC90 is better is the 3rd row seat can take a pretty small adult. In the GX I was able to do a sit behind yourself test, when I set up the driving, and I was conmfortable in both frist and second row. I douldn't do ti with the XC sine there simply was not enough legroom in the back.

The XC has better packaging for the 3rd row so it can stow it away, but it doesn't have an axle or full size spare. If you want cargo roon take out the 3rd row on the GX when you dont need it and it you have quite a bit more catrgo space than the XC.

The GX was quieter and smoother than the XC. The XC felt like it might be faster, but not by much.

Also go look up the reliability ratings of the GX and XC, and see which one you would rather own. Teh GX got a bad rep in 03 with the first models, but has been making up for it lately.


I think people get obsessed with specs, but you dont drive and own specs. Interior space was always a mistery to me, as I have found on numerous occasions one vehicle being listed as bigger than the other. But when I do the self behind self test the opposite is true.

Also dotn believe the ground clearance specs of the 2 for one second, look for yourself. I also have a 4R with the same underpinnings as the GX, and I have taken it offroad numerous times, not just fireroad stuff, but rock crawling, dune hopping, mud bogging and it has held up fine without any problems. The XC's chassis and drivetrain will simply not hold up to that at all, even the dealers said it is not an offroad vehicle.

rdollie

Agreed, the XC90 was not built as an off-roader (I did take ours out on the 4x4 trail at Joshua Tree - not the best idea with street tires unless you have a kidney belt.) It's a very capable soft-roader that happens to do quite well in modest off-road environments but it's not made to run up Moab (neither is the GX or most other $50k+ toys.)

The ground clearance number I cited for the XC90 is possibly a bit low. I think the number I remember is 9.2 or 9.3 inches. It has a hair more clearance than the Explorer.

Regarding reliability, the GX and XC have the same story. First couple of years were problematic with steady improvement (actually this tends to be the story for most new Euro Lux vehicles these days.) The XC90 is on much the same curve as the GX - it just started later as it is newer (RX had the same curve a few years back.)

Again, if you're going real off-roading, neither of these vehicles is the right choice with the XC90 being less right than the GX. If these things end up limited to the asphalt jungle like most every SUV in this price range I contend the XC90 V8 and the GX470 are indeed competitors. The XC has the advantage of having a wide price range (the base 5-cylinder turbo is relatively affordable) that allows it to compete price-wise with the RX as well.

Regarding your 2nd row test, I hope you realize that in the XC90 each of those three 2nd row seats slides fore and aft separately? Anybody owner would realize the need to not put the two tallest people on the same side of the vehicle so I just don't see a real-world problem with XC90 leg room unless you are in the habit of transporting the starting line up for a NBA team.

There's a reason for the XC90's sales success as the top selling Euro SUV (outselling the GX I believe) and it's certainly not because Volvo has a better reputation for quality vs. Lexus., certainly not because Volvo has more prestige than Lexus, etc.

QUOTE=bliksem]I test drove the XC90 and the GX when looking. I dont really care what the specs say, but the GX is significantly bigger inside then the XC90. The only place where the XC90 is better is the 3rd row seat can take a pretty small adult. In the GX I was able to do a sit behind yourself test, when I set up the driving, and I was conmfortable in both frist and second row. I douldn't do ti with the XC sine there simply was not enough legroom in the back.

The XC has better packaging for the 3rd row so it can stow it away, but it doesn't have an axle or full size spare. If you want cargo roon take out the 3rd row on the GX when you dont need it and it you have quite a bit more catrgo space than the XC.

The GX was quieter and smoother than the XC. The XC felt like it might be faster, but not by much.

Also go look up the reliability ratings of the GX and XC, and see which one you would rather own. Teh GX got a bad rep in 03 with the first models, but has been making up for it lately.


I think people get obsessed with specs, but you dont drive and own specs. Interior space was always a mistery to me, as I have found on numerous occasions one vehicle being listed as bigger than the other. But when I do the self behind self test the opposite is true.

Also dotn believe the ground clearance specs of the 2 for one second, look for yourself. I also have a 4R with the same underpinnings as the GX, and I have taken it offroad numerous times, not just fireroad stuff, but rock crawling, dune hopping, mud bogging and it has held up fine without any problems. The XC's chassis and drivetrain will simply not hold up to that at all, even the dealers said it is not an offroad vehicle.[/QUOTE]

rdollie

I almost forgot...since you don't want to use a strict comparison of quantitative data let's use your approach. Under your approach the RX440h is LARGER than the GX470 because it's combined front and rear legroom is 78.9 inches vs. 78.6 in the GX. Now in reality we all know the RX is smaller and shorter (but only be 1.0 inch) than the GX (and the XC90 is .7 inches longer than the GX.)

rdollie

Again, the XC90 is longer than both the RX and GX. Yes, the RX has a bigger boot behind the second row in no small part because it doesn't have a third row. Of course the max cargo capacity of the RX is 85 cubic feet vs. 78 cubic feet for the GX but I bet you wouldn't call the RX the bigger vehicle now would you?

Just remember this, at the end of the day the Gross Vehicle Weight of the GX is only 110 pounds more than the XC90. They are that close (except again for off-road capabilities which again don't usually count given where these vehicles tend to be found.)

Oddly, when I check out the XC90 at Edmunds the four vehicle they pull up automatically for comparison are the Caddy SRX, Land Rover LR3, Lexus LX470 ( ), and Infiniti FX45. It looks like the XC90 splits the difference with cross-overs and ladder-on-frame SUVs.