pman6

compared to the 5 series, the s90 has 1.5" extra front overhang,
That's some secret sauce other carmakers can't touch.

Looking at the engine bay, the s90's is packed full with the 2L engine.

Same goes for the new V60 and S60.

UDel

Volvo's may have RWD proportions but they still don't drive like RWD cars, only having a tiny 4 cylinder engine that can be pushed back further helps while its competitors have 6 and 8 cylinders and still maintain good proportions. The Acura Legend also had RWD proportions because it was on a long platform and driveshaft I believe ran through the oil pan area and it still had a 6 cylinder.

mmarshall

Volvo's design philosophy (as most of their past shows) is not necessarily any particular kind of driving "feel", but generally safety first. A good-sized overhang in front helps produce more crush-space (and more room for a crumple-zone) to absorb the force of a collision before it gets to the occupants.

Sulu

Although that engine cover disguises a lot, this picture shows the engine sitting far forward of the strut towers (the front axle), suggesting that it is still a normal, FWD car.

Volvo accomplished the RWD look then, of the long hood and long dash-to-axle ratio (distance from the base of windshield (the A-pillar) to the centre of the front axle), by moving back the A-pillar. If an automaker moves the A-pillar of transverse-engine FWD car back, I would expect to see wasted space between the engine and the firewall, which I do not see here, but the large engine cover and the black plastic cowl behind the engine may be hiding a lot.

So I am left to speculate. My guess is that perhaps Volvo places a long exhaust manifold at the back side of the engine, like Mazda does (if I remember correctly) with its SkyActiv-G engines. If I remember correctly, Mazda explained the long hood of their SkyActiv-G cars because their long 4-2-1 exhaust manifold exits out the rear of the engine.

Sulu

In the front-engine, FWD iQ mini-car, Toyota mounted the differential on the front of the transaxle, rather than on the rear (which is where all other transverse-engine FWD cars mount the differential). This moved the engine-transaxle combination behind the front axle, giving the small car a shorter front overhang and the longest possible wheelbase in that tiny car.

I know of no other automakers that do this and it would seem that Volvo did not do this either. Doing so would have been a method to shorten the front overhang and improve the front-rear balance of the car also, but it would complicate the steering assembly (under the engine to front axle) and would mean snaking the driveshaft under the engine as well in AWD vehicles.

peteharvey

Your photo shows that S90 has longitudinally mounted in-line four in front of the front axle similar to Audi's MLB longitudinal platforms used in A4/A6/A8 etc.

IMO, Volvo S90's trick to making FWD look more like RWD is to:
(1) Keep the front overhang as short as possible, though at just 873 mm, it is still almost 2" longer than the 5 Series at 832 mm.
(2) Deliberately position the "leading" edge of the front doors more "posteriorly", with a wider box section - to give the vehicle a RWD or front mid-engine look.
(3) Finally, on plan view, notice how the Volvo S90 has more rounded corners? The more rounded the front corners, the shorter the front overhang "looks".
Because if Volvo actually shortened the S90's front overhang, then the protruding longitudinal in-line four cylinder may have difficulty fitting.

The second photo below is of a Mazda 3 sedan with a more conventional FWD design.










Furthermore, in the old days, the front transaxle was between the flywheel/torque converter and the gearbox, resulting in a more prominent front overhang.




Nowadays, Audi puts the front transaxle actually between the flywheel and the clutch/torque converter.






Several decades ago back in the 1990's, Acura made the Legend also with a longitudinally mounted engine, but they were able to achieve a very short front overhang, and a long distance from the front wheel arches to the leading edge of the front door, by mounting the engine higher off the ground, so that the front transaxle could actually pass under the oil sump.








On plan view, notice how the base of the RWD-based 5 Series front windscreen is more posteriorly positioned to actually provide space for a longitudinal engine mounted behind the front axle.
Normally, the leading edge of the front doors on FWD-based cars are much more anteriorly positioned.

chromedome

Dissenting opinion here but does it matter? I'd rather have minimal length for space efficiency as long as safety isn't compromised. I'm a fan of the cab forward styling on Chrysler LH cars and the Ford Mondeo's proud FWD proportions. As it is, having RWD proportions is like a snob badge than an engineering necessity.

In the age of EVs you could have a rolling dumpling with 4-motor AWD and a 0-60 time of 0.9 seconds. FWD or RWD proportions will become irrelevant because there's no space needed for an engine.

Johnhav430

I was once a Volvo fan, big time, I had 3 of them when I was 19, even put my high mileage 300k badge on the trunk (this was the 90's, it was a big deal to hit 300k). We have a friend who has two of them now, and all I can say is it's frightening that with that kind of price tag, it has a 4 cyl. motor. Big thumbs down y'all

p.s. imho there is no advantage to FWD, and I will go further and say I dislike AWD systems based on FWD. I drove home in treacherous conditions yesterday with my LS430 that has snow tires on all corners. Yes AWD based on RWD would be better, but it's a sacrifice the other 85% of the time when the road is dry.

Johnhav430

Here's another question for you guys....do you think that European mfgs still build the unibody to basically outlast the powertrain? When I was driving Volvos in the 90's, I was astounded how easy it was to get parts from a salvage yard, and I walked a couple where you would see acres of 200's and 700's, most of which were mint for the condition of the body panels. Same with VWs. I know when my in-laws junked a '99 Passat, the body was pretty mint, unlike my '98 Maxima, which has rust.

If car ownership basically lasts 36 mos. these days, wouldn't it stand to reason that it's not necessary to build like before?

BoDarville

designing a sedan to have the "look" of a rwd platform without the engineering chops to back it up is the equivalent of a man getting pec implants - all show and no go. the current s60 t6 r-design awd (the sportiest model short of the unicorn polestar) has a 61/39 split, and is not hailed by the press for its cornering or handling. we'll see if they rectify that with the upcoming generation

Johnhav430

why you hatin' on my implants? Do you know how hard it is to get up and go to the gym at 5 am every day when I have a 1:15 commute?

All kidding aside, I think the appreciation for RWD is about equal to the desire for a clutch. The AWD vehicles that cannot determine where traction is needed, cannot send the torque where needed, and in the end are unable to pull themselves up an incline imho supports what I have long suspected about the car industry. AWD is a badge of honor and invincibility, that doesn't pass muster when tested, which is infrequently.

JDR76

Johnhav430

Audi said that way back when, when I was a toddler. But they started to discount that their cars had motors far forward of the front axle, when BMW started to bring FWD A4s along to 3 Series events. Since when are driving dynamics not important?

When tires wear 3X faster on the front than the rear, Houston, there is a Santy Clause.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

JDR76