Topic: Test Drive: 2016 Volvo S60 Cross Country

[Guy]

Pffft....yeah no. Volvo wagons are blessed with amazing looks. Much like the Outback sedan of 10-15 years ago....why?? The XC60 and V60 to me are the ones to have.

XC60 & XC70 for me.  You can actually put quite a few things in the cargo area.  I would take the older 3.2L (non-turbo).

We had one with that engine, we only kept it 18 months. That engine has no torque whatsoever, the transmission would downshift at the slightest incline and it was very thirsty. We went from 13L/100 km with the XC70 to 10.3 with the XC60 with the T6. While the 3.2 was the worst engine I had in my recent cars, the T6 is by far the best!

My 2 cents..

[quadzilla]

The reason is because sedans heat up/cool down faster (less volume to control) and they tend to be quieter.

  Its not like we are comparing the size of a mini to a school bus. The difference in space is so small.

[Fobroader]

Pffft....yeah no. Volvo wagons are blessed with amazing looks. Much like the Outback sedan of 10-15 years ago....why?? The XC60 and V60 to me are the ones to have.

XC60 & XC70 for me.  You can actually put quite a few things in the cargo area.  I would take the older 3.2L (non-turbo).

We had one with that engine, we only kept it 18 months. That engine has no torque whatsoever, the transmission would downshift at the slightest incline and it was very thirsty. We went from 13L/100 km with the XC70 to 10.3 with the XC60 with the T6. While the 3.2 was the worst engine I had in my recent cars, the T6 is by far the best!

My 2 cents..

My moms XC60 R has a wicked engine.....turbo for the win.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[DriverJeff]

But isn't the reason you prefer driving a sedan that....well...it actually drives like a sedan, and not an SUV?   

Nope.

The reason is because sedans heat up/cool down faster (less volume to control) and they tend to be quieter.

Both of those possible factors are so minuscule compared to the wagon variant that any possible benefit would be far outstripped by the sheer embarrassment of being seen driving such a silly thing. 

[Solstice2006]

Pffft....yeah no. Volvo wagons are blessed with amazing looks. Much like the Outback sedan of 10-15 years ago....why?? The XC60 and V60 to me are the ones to have.

XC60 & XC70 for me.  You can actually put quite a few things in the cargo area.  I would take the older 3.2L (non-turbo).

We had one with that engine, we only kept it 18 months. That engine has no torque whatsoever, the transmission would downshift at the slightest incline and it was very thirsty. We went from 13L/100 km with the XC70 to 10.3 with the XC60 with the T6. While the 3.2 was the worst engine I had in my recent cars, the T6 is by far the best!

My 2 cents..

Thanks for the feedback.  I am not speaking from experience.  As the only Volvo I drove, was an S60 (previous gen) and a diesel.  I just prefer non-turbo if possible.  Thats just me.  I know it wasn't very fuel efficient.  But on paper, it seems a bit more reliable from what I have read.  Didn't know it was so gutless though. 

[dirtyjeffer]

Thanks for the feedback.  I am not speaking from experience.  As the only Volvo I drove, was an S60 (previous gen) and a diesel.  I just prefer non-turbo if possible.  Thats just me.  I know it wasn't very fuel efficient.  But on paper, it seems a bit more reliable from what I have read.  Didn't know it was so gutless though.

i don't have any personal experience from either, but from what i've read elsewhere, the 3.2 NA V6 is a dog...not very powerful and very thirsty...if you look on autotrader for used Volvos, many have the 3.2L...it seems people don't keep those ones...the T5 and T6 engines are the ones to have.

[Solstice2006]

Thanks for the feedback.  I am not speaking from experience.  As the only Volvo I drove, was an S60 (previous gen) and a diesel.  I just prefer non-turbo if possible.  Thats just me.  I know it wasn't very fuel efficient.  But on paper, it seems a bit more reliable from what I have read.  Didn't know it was so gutless though.

i don't have any personal experience from either, but from what i've read elsewhere, the 3.2 NA V6 is a dog...not very powerful and very thirsty...if you look on autotrader for used Volvos, many have the 3.2L...it seems people don't keep those ones...the T5 and T6 engines are the ones to have.

I hear what your saying.  But I never go by the availability on the used market.  Just as I prefer the NA BMW engines, like a 328 or 330 (E90).  But I suspect there could be more turbos on the used market.

So if the 3.2 is a dog, guess I will have to settle with a used RX350.  Can't go wrong there... Except it's a little plain...    Darn, now you have me looking a used RX's that I can't afford.....

[sailor723]

This made no sense when Subaru did with the Outback sedan and it makes no sense now. The sales numbers would seem to confirm that.

Autos.ca ...Could you have possibly found a more obscure, less relevant vehicle for a road test article?

[johngenx]

Completely agree that this product makes no sense at all. There's no segment. There's evidence no one wants "SUV" sedans based on Subarus inability to sell one.

If I was a dealer I'd stock zero. Special order only thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guy]

Thanks for the feedback.  I am not speaking from experience.  As the only Volvo I drove, was an S60 (previous gen) and a diesel.  I just prefer non-turbo if possible.  Thats just me.  I know it wasn't very fuel efficient.  But on paper, it seems a bit more reliable from what I have read.  Didn't know it was so gutless though.

i don't have any personal experience from either, but from what i've read elsewhere, the 3.2 NA V6 is a dog...not very powerful and very thirsty...if you look on autotrader for used Volvos, many have the 3.2L...it seems people don't keep those ones...the T5 and T6 engines are the ones to have.

It's an inline 6 BTW..

[dirtyjeffer]

It's an inline 6 BTW..

oops, i forgot about that...so few of those left.

[Solstice2006]

This made no sense when Subaru did with the Outback sedan and it makes no sense now. The sales numbers would seem to confirm that.

Autos.ca ...Could you have possibly found a more obscure, less relevant vehicle for a road test article?

Well if they didn't review it, then we wouldn't know how useless this vehicle is.  Just like that ugly Citroen.  Guess there are some who are interested in vehicles that won't come here.   

[Stilllovetrucks]

Start throwing me tomatoes, I love this thing! Think of it as the Coupe version of the XC60 and it'll seem "normal" next to, say, an X4. The S60 ages gracefully IMHO, but the XC60 looks VERY outdated to my eyes.

 

this configuration, minus the already stated miscues, is perfect for me..... even my aged parents would use this, as their legacy is not as high end and subaru dealerships suck.

[Stilllovetrucks]

Weird car indeed!  I don't think Subaru had much success with the Outback sedan so not sure why Volvo is re-inventing the square wheel with this.

Not weird, practical for some, and I am one of the 20, lol, that loved the outback sedan; but the quality was not equal to longevity.  Love this car too...... the Volvo suv's imho
are fugly and bulbous.

[tooscoops]

subaru dealers might not be great, but from my experience, volvo isn't that far off...

the 3.2 isn't their best engine, but i didn't mind it. thought it could hold it's own and was alright compared to some older engines out there. seemed well balanced, jut not real strong on power.

the sedan thing, the reasoning i hear from people can be multiple. having the wheels in a trunk keeps noise down... keeping storage away from passengers (danger in a crash, smell [think sports gear]), exterior appearance, makes the car "feel" smaller as a sedan... the space might be more in a hatch on paper, but not as many people actually use the extra square footage above the beltline as you would think.

still.... the type of people who go want awd with ground clearance are usually those few who can use that extra bit of space (campers, skiers, etc.) so i can understand the lack of demand.