Its the same as before basically. Lexus is doing amazing with the RX in sales for the 2 row CUV, while the Volvo is killing it in the three row game due to the most useable space in a CUV.

Lexus reliability from simply forums is biz as usual, while Volvo is good for a european car.

However I see the Volvo gunning for Lexus's bread and butter RX with the launch of the T5 2 Row XC90. Its down on HP, and 2 seats but basically the same.

Plus with the option lists as amazing as it is with Volvo and even other counterparts the Lexus is kinda of showing its age in certain departments. Due note that this is not gonna affect sales to such a degree.

Older Infotainment systems without CarPlay at bare mini
Driving aids need to become more polished

 

Haven't driven the rx but I drove the xc and it had a lot of road noise and the sound of the 4 cylinder wasn't very enjoyable. Lease numbers are kind of bad right now as well. Msrp was about $58k and the payment would have been about $900 with minimal money down.

 

I think better comparison is rx and xc60. I test drove both and volvo drove way better than RX. But again, it could be because I was testing rx450h. I was almost on the verge of buying volvo (CPO comes with 100k miles warranty) but the more availability of RX and better predicted reliability pushed me towards RX.

Now again, for a 2nd SUV/CUV, I'd definitely give XC60 a chance.

 

aren't they moving production to China?

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/14/volvo-china-us-opinion/

 

TLDR on the article is only the S60L is made in China and imported to the U.S.

The new South Carolina plant will make the regular S60s for the global market starting in 2018. The XC models are still made in Sweden.

 

You da Real MVP

 

the XC60 is tiny compared to an RX, its an NX competitor.

The RX handles well but its the ride comfort which is great, even on F-Sport models compared to the hard sprung European cars.

I wasnt impressed with the 4 cylinder sound either. I expect a V6 in a luxury car - If im spending £60k on a car Im not going to care about emissions and fuel economy am I?

 

If you are considering the Volvo XC90, you should compare it to the new Audi Q7 as Dan Neil did recently in the Wall Street Journal (Feb. 4, 2016):

MAY I JUST GEEK OUT A BIT? The 2017 Audi Q7 3.0T SUV weighs, officially, 474 pounds less than the outgoing model. As these things go, that’s some diet. Part of the weight loss is due to the fact that the former Q7 was overbuilt, obliged to share major bits with ruddy-cheeked off-roaders Porsche Cayenne and VW Touareg sport-utilities, its cousins in the VW Group. Car designers call this unwanted legacy of platform sharing “scar tissue,” by the way.

For the new Q7, Audi pumped up the lightness, using extravagant amounts of aluminum in chassis, even aluminum castings, as well as aluminum in all the doors and body panels (aluminum is about 30% lighter than steel in these applications). According to the literature, the Q7 is no more than 12% high-strength steel.

Why is that interesting, you ask? I contrast it with another big SUV project, another lushly sprung luxe-truck for about the same price and size, whose designers went another way. When the clean screen presented itself to Volvo’s XC90 team, they chose to build in steel. Aluminum vs. steel. Which one is best? I’m warming up to steel.

What cars are made of is of surpassing interest right now, beyond Geekdom. Global vehicle emission standards are rising and crash-test standards only get stricter. The common enemy, in crash or fuel economy tests, is mass.

I had expected that, in automakers’ relentless search for efficiency, aluminum alloys would inevitably supplant steel, except in a few crash-critical areas such as side beam and B-pillar. But steel has added recent advantages: cost is the big one, but formability, fastening, tailoring and pinpoint strength are also important. Steel rocks.
I’m struck by what you might call steel’s space efficiency. Put simply, a steel box can be made of thinner walls than an aluminum box to do the same job. Aluminum takes up space in packaging.

Let’s compare these two, one majority high-strength steel, the XC90, and aluminum-flavored Q7.


In this Q7, when you lower the two rows of rear seats, the unobstructed cargo hold yawns before you: 71.6 cubic feet behind the front seats. The Audi’s five seats (not over generously padded) in the rear two rows fold and disappear, forming a flat load floor 79.5 inches long. The molded door trim is closely profiled and the interior intrusion of the B-pillars minimal. The door openings themselves and door swing angles are generous. Step back from the opened power lift gate. Pretty great.

But the steel-ribbed XC90 is like a shuttlecraft bay back there: 85.7 cubic feet in a three-row SUV that is, nose-to-tail, about five-inches shorter than the German.

And, in this case steel’s coup de grâce, the XC90 is lighter than the Q7 by about 300 pounds.

So, while other picayune peddlers of automotive opinion dwell on the Audi’s thinking headlamps and four-wheel steering, I am like a small child at Christmas, fascinated by the box.

Speaking of toys, the Q7 has them, a raft of amenities like the optional full-color high-def 12.3-inch TFT “Virtual Cockpit.” In one format, a Googlized map of the world unfurls as if in itty-bitty Panavision. OK, that’s cool

Another big hunk of silicon runs the infotainment and telematics package, with 4G LTE data, smartphone connectivity, and blazing Wi-Fi to service two (optional) entertainment tablets for the rear cabin. The central viewer is a landscape-oriented pop-up TFT screen, which is nicely civilized atop the dash. But the cabin’s technical grace note is the sleek vanes in the across-the-dash air register.

For those who are hearing-impaired, or those who would like to be, I recommend the optional Bang & Olufsen sound system with 23 speakers and 1,920 Watts. We can agree 23 speakers is a cry for help.

Distracted? The Q7 offers a suite of driver’s assistance/bonehead mitigation technologies. One system, the Vehicle Exit Assist, warns occupants if a bicycle is approaching before they open the doors (somebody in R&D rides a bike in Manhattan, I’m guessing). Another bank of code is called “collision avoidance system,” which will actively engage steering assist to help maneuver around an obstacle.

Other dope digital includes full-color head’s up display, with graphics for navi and status, including vehicle speed, which I ignored on my way to a very unhappy meeting with a California Highway patrolman, alas. I blame the polarized sunglasses.

Aesthetically, the new Q7 adheres to a proven formula: When in doubt, add metal trim. But it absolutely works, inside and out. The Audi’s archly technocratic grille gets the gourmet range treatment, and the lower air intakes and lower doors are kissed with chrome-like bling. The signature move here, the flying suplex of the brand, are the arrow-themed LED running lights and taillamps.

If you like shiny objects, you will appreciate the Q7’s interior, as well, with lustrous wood or metallic surfaces. Audi cabins succeed because of their richness of materials and elegant lines, not because they resemble the cockpit of some criminal mastermind’s speedboat.


At the moment, the Q7 comes with the one engine, a splendid firebot, the 3.0-liter supercharged V6 good for 333 hp and 325 pound feet of torque.

Compute that power to weight through an eight-speed transmission and traction optimized all-wheel grip and you get acceleration in the mid-5 second range. That’s a fine pace for a 2.5-ton wagon with a 3.0 liters of engine displacement. The refinement coaxed from this hardworking powertrain is trademark Audi.

The vehicle I spent the most time in was the Prestige trim, a lot of horsy hardware, including adaptive air suspension, torque-vectoring, and four-wheel steering, wiggling some very sporty 20-inch rubber. It was awesome. It drove like a high-price sport wagon, which it sort of is, albeit with a fat man’s coffin tied to the roof.

And I was having a lovely time in this traction-jugging showboat until I saw the blue lights, which seriously curtailed my joy. I’ll circle back to Audi’s steel magnolia when I’m in a better mood.

 

I test drove both and felt pretty similar size to me. The cargo may seem smaller but it is also taller as the back comes down straight and does not have an incline like RX.

Here is an inch by inch comparison
http://www.thecarconnection.com/car-...olvo_xc60_2015

 

i`ll take the looks and reliability of the 2016 RX any day over that volvo...

 

I think the new 2016 Lincoln MKX is more of a direct competitor to the RX350. Same size, similar pricing, many more option and color packages. I sat in one at the DC Auto Show and liked the Black Label versions. I liked their exterior styling much better than the new RX which looks like the brother of the new Nissan Murano.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/over...ncoln_mkx_2016

 

The new Murano is pretty sexy.

 

yeah they do look pretty nice.

 

The XC90 is noticeably larger and taller riding vehicle. With the T5 5 seater launch the XC90 is in direct compeition to the RX.

I think if you need a three CUV, XC90 or nothin

RX may look meaner, but its noticeably smaller and less tech filled, but will outlast the XC90 in the long run