Volvo XC90 vs. Prius v

It's hard to be safer than in a Prius v with 7 airbags and 6 standard electronic technologies and one optional radar collision detect system. Add in steel unibody and various industry standard features like crumple zones and you can be in a pretty serious wreck (or avoid one) and walk away. The only way to be safer is to be in a bigger truck with the same advantages.

 

have you driven them?

 

Run; don't walk away from the XC90. This car is basically unchanged from its introduction in 2003 and is now the oldest platform on the road today. Check out Consumer Reports reliability ratings.

The XC90 is a paragon of unreliability and a gas sucker that will empty your wallet and guarantee that you'll be spending lots of quality time at your friendly Volvo dealer and perhaps on the back of a hook. Most Volvo dealers owe their franchise to this vehicle that is the primary contributor to the dealer's 'back-end absorption' (translates to the amount of dealership overhead that is absorbed by service revenue).

The one clear advantage for the XC90 is front seat comfort. Per my assessment and experience, Volvo has the most comfortable seats in the industry that really help melt the miles away. The seats in my Gen 2 Prius are really unacceptable in my view, while the seats in my Gen 3 Prius are improved to 'no worse than anyone else's' that translates to; passable. A Prius with Volvo-caliber seats would truly be a treat.

Sorry to advise, but Volvo abandoned the safety franchise many years ago while Toyota has done a fine job with passive safety for the Prius. Neither the XC90 or the Prius bring much to the table in terms of active safety so that's basically a draw.

 

Volvo's are definitely known for "you pay later." Since you tend to hold onto your vehicles for a long time, you will pay the price down the line for owning a Volvo. This is speaking from experience and knowledge of other Volvo owners paying the price.

 

I've owned three (count 'em!) Volvos. The first was a manual four-banger '82 DL 240 wagon that I kept for 15 years and 285,000 miles. It was expensive to maintain. Over that time I had to replace the wiring harness, the air-mass thingamabob once (at 116,000 miles), the clutch, the engine seals, the water pump (twice), a gas pump -- after a failure left me stranded on the freeway at night. I kept the car because I liked it (those seats were sure comfortable; I drove the car cross-country four times.). I budgeted for repairs and I always had enough cash on hand when needed and fixing the car was always cheaper than replacing it. I finally ditched it after moving to L.A. and finding that constant shifting in stop-and-go traffic on "the 10" freeway was somewhat nerve wracking.

I traded the wagon on a slightly used, automatic, 5-cyliner '97 Volvo 850. It had been a deluxe rental car for about a year and only had 12,500 miles on the odometer. I really like this car and it was the most reliable Volvo I ever owned. It was built like a tank, had a great ride and power when I needed it (although I had to push a button to put it in "sport" mode). It never left me stranded anywhere. I changed the oil every 3,000 miles (as I had with the DL 240) and had it serviced at the factory-recommended intervals. I can't recall anything much in the way of extraordinary costs with this car. I passed it on to my wife in 2001, when I moved on to an '00 S70.

The S70 was a deluxe "special edition" model with about every bell and whistle you could get at the time, including a moonroof and leather seats. (Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration. There was a CD player that I rarely used. The moonroof was the bell and the leather seats were the whistle, or vice versa, take your pick.) The S70 was also out of a rental fleet and almost new. It had a light-turbo and plenty of pep. It was mechanically reliable, but the electronics were problematic. Most of the gremlins were chased away under warranty, but I had to foot the bill for some stuff -- including a couple of antenna rings -- gizmos that received the radio signal from the key so you could start the car. Four of them failed on me. The wife got the S70 in '07 when I moved on to a new RAV4. The S70 continued to serve us pretty well for the next five years. We kept it until June of this year when my wife got a new Camry hybrid. (Love it!)

I regularly budgeted $1,200/year -- at $100/month -- to maintain these cars and usually spent all of it by year's end. My RAV4 has so far proved more reliable than the Volvos and less expensive on upkeep (but I haven't even driven it 45,000 miles yet). I would never buy another Volvo, since the company has changed hands, is now owned by the Chinese and Consumer Reports doesn't think much of it reliability-wise. In fact, the latest CR Buying Guide lists the '04-'05 and 2010 6-cylinder XC90 models as used cars to avoid. (Sorry, I think I buried the lead here.)

In fact, I am on this forum because I'm looking for a hybrid to replace the RAV4 18-24 months from now, and the "v" looks promising. I haven't driven one yet. I plan to rent one for a day when I take the RAV in for 45,000-mile service and then I'll see how much I like it. That'll depend on whether it can deliver enough power when I need it and whether I'm satisfied with the quality of the ride.

This is probably more information than you needed. I hope it helps.

 

Hopefully, Toyota will come to its senses and produce a RAV4 Hybrid/PHV. I really feel that this is a vehicle that would fill the void between the HiHy and the "v". My wife has a regular Highlander with 126K. I told her her next car was going to be hybrid/PHV, since she only gets about 16 mpg now. She said that she doesn't want to drive the way I do. I told her that even if she drives normally she would double her mileage. Hopefully, I can hold her off until Toyota realizes that there is a need for the "tweener" hybrid/PHV vehicle.

 

Volvo's owner, Zhejiang Geely Holding Group announced today they borrowed another $1.2 billion from the China Development Bank in the face of plummeting sales in US and European markets. (They've recently needed to throttle back production in their main plants to deal with excessive unsold inventories) Beyond this, Volvo is looking for credits to be able to finance investments amounting to $11 billion.

The official story is that Volvo was purchased by Geely, but reality in the planned state economy of China is that there are no significant money transfers without the direct involvement of the Chinese government. I agree that I have no desire to support the Chinese government through purchase of Volvo product. Follow the money trail.

 

I'm 6'6 225lbs and when I test drove the Prius V found it very roomy and comfy, on par with my giant Ford truck. Comfort would not be an issue in the V. (don't ask about my Gen II Prius, it's downright tiny inside)

 

Volvos are not the safest vehicles. In addition to studying crash tests, the mass of the vehicle also helps in the real world. That would make a Chevy suburban much safer than a Volvo.

As far as reliability and costs. Volvos are not very reliable, have above average repair costs and below average fuel economy.

If you are looking for safety along with reliability and low costs, the V, or the Camry hybrid are good bets. The Lexus hybrid based on the Camry probably has even more bells and whistles than the Volvo.

 

Most significant is the ability of the vehicle's body structure to dissipate crash energy from a localized impact point over the entire vehicle structure. Energy transfer to occupants is minimized as the vehicle sacrifices itself to absorb impact force through controlled deformation. A car only absorbs energy by deformation. A high mass, rigid vehicle is not someplace you want to be in an accident. A vehicle that protects occupants from crash energy is one that has been painstakingly engineered for controlled absorption and energy transfer. Vehicles that protect occupants well, typically wind up being totaled.

As example: if your car were struck from the side on the driver's door; your chances to avoid injury depend upon how well the car's structure can transfer crash energy from the door impact along the A/B pillars, the floorpan, the seat structures, and the structural members on the opposite side of the car.

Volvo doesn't just study crash tests. They use the crash data to document how well their safety structures perform per design considerations, and actively refine and improve their performance. This is an approach that most European makers pursue to optimize the crash performance of their cars. Many other carmakers validate their car's crash performance to ensure they meet the letter of federally mandated safety standards.

 

A Chevrolet rep will tell you the same thing about their vehicles. All North American and European car manufacturers closely study crash results to optimize the vehicles' response. They are also carefully studied to also minimize mass. Unfortunately the laws of physics still apply. Given two vehicles of the same safety design, the one of greater mass will impart less acceleration to its occupants.

Please note that Volvo is now a Chinese car company. Chinese cars have significantly worse safety results than European or NA vehicles.


iPad ?

 

Certainly mass is a component of the physics equation that defines safety considerations in collisions between mismatched vehicles but there's not a direct correlation between mass and safety performance. If it were that simple, we'd shop for the safest cars solely on the basis of mass. By this logic, a car from the 40's - 60's would be great safety picks.

I agree that a Chevy rep might tell you they work hard to optimize crash safety, but a quick visit to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reflects lots of poor, marginal and average safety ratings for Chevy cars. They have some good newer models as well but their record of safety performance and innovation isn't good.

The domestic manufacturers have strongly opposed every single piece of mandated safety and environmental legislation for the past 40 years. Be it safety glass, seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters, CAFE requirements or ABS brakes; the domestics have fought meaningful safety innovation at every turn. They haven't looked to build cars to be safer, or cleaner, or with better economy until the government forced their hands.

Yes the Chinese now own Volvo as I've acknowledged in a previous post, however lets be fair: there's not a Volvo vehicle on the road that has been designed, validated or built by the Chinese.

 

Lets remember most of the chassis designs Volvo uses came from Ford.

 

Don't confuse chassis platform with body design. Chassis platform commonality comes in the form of brakes, steering column and like parts

The XC90 is built on the Volvo P2 platform that Volvo introduced in 1999 for the S80. This platform was developed solely by Volvo before Ford was in the picture. The P2 platform was in part a key reason that Ford purchased Volvo. Ford looked to use the P2 for the Taurus but instead ended up using this platform for the Five Hundred and Lincoln MKS.

The current S60, XC60, S80, V70, and XC70 are built on the Ford EUCD (global midsize platform) that is the basis for the Ford Mondeo and Galaxy as well as Range Rover Evoque, and Land Rover LR2.

Each of the players using common chassis build up their own body structures and the safety design elements of their unique body.

 

I see the OP started the thread a few weeks ago, so I don't know if you're still seeking info. However we own both so thought I throw in my 2 cents.

My wife drives a 2007 Volvo XC90 3.2 that we bought new and still own, and I have 2012 Prius v Three. As far as safety goes I really couldn't tell you which one is better, what I can go into is driving, and ownership experience.

Anecdotally, our XC90 has been one of the most reliable trouble free vehicles we've ever owned. I did a little research before buying and all the reviews were saying that the original 2.5 T and T6 2.9 liter engines were somewhat unreliable (wasn't interested in the V8), but for 2007 the new 3.2 engine addressed a lot of those problems, and I can vouch for ours at least in that it has been trouble free. It's a nice vehicle to drive, smooth, quiet, decent power delivery, lot's of room, very comfortable seats, good driving position, good build quality, good materials. Gas mileage is poor, but average for vehicles this size at about 17-18 mpg. My only gripes are the A pillars are huge and create a big blind spot for oncoming cars as you're trying to make a turn. I have to get used to this every time I drive another car and then go back to the Volvo. Also, it handles like a truck, not very sporty at all. I've owned other SUV's and it's not the worst but not one of the best I've had.

In comparison I find the Prius to feel like an economy car with a higher than economy car price tag with a little better fuel economy than a fuel efficient economy car. The materials feel cheap, it's very loud inside compared to the Volvo, the seats while not complete torture devices are not very comfortable. It's very under-powered but you get used to it, and I don't really drive as fast as I used to so it's more than adequate for my needs. After getting used to the absence of power in the Prius v it feels like our XC90 had like 500 horse power when I drive it - it's that dramatic. It funny because I used to think the XC90 was slow compared to my last car - a SAAB 9-3 turbo, but it's a beast compared to the Prius v. On the other hand it handles a lot better than the XC90 - not that it's a great handling car but just better than an overweight seven passenger SUV.

Something that is very noticeable though is that the XC90 is old tech and the Prius v in new. I use bluetooth all the time, along with all the other gadgetry. I'm not sure what year bluetooth was added to the XC90 but even when it was added it was an afterthought and not really well integrated, and it's very difficult to retrofit to the older systems like in my ours which doesn't have bluetooth. I have a long commute so I listen to a lot streaming content and it helps keep me sane. I can still do with the XC90 but I have to use the AUX in.

For my hour each way commute I prefer the Prius v because of the fuel economy and with the stop and go traffic I like that the engine cuts off, so it doesn't feel like I'm wasting fuel for half of my commute stuck at a stand still. Also there's lots of gadgets to play with while I'm sitting there.

For longer drives we much prefer the Volvo, even considering the fuel penalty. It's just much more comfortable, you can have a conversation in a low voice and still hear each other, the road noise is almost non existent compared to the Prius. The other day I picked up my wife with the Prius v from the airport and took the concrete paved express way home and she thought something was wrong with the car because she heard a lot of strange noises. I reassured her it was just the road noise - something she wasn't used to hearing in the Volvo. It was very difficult to have a conversation because of all the noise as well. She was tired so she was speaking softly so I couldn't hear a word she was saying - and I even had dynomat installed on all four doors which did improve things somewhat from stock.

 

A "little better fuel economy"?

Is 50% + considered a little??

Then I'd like a little better raise!

 

Maybe I didn't phrase that well, I meant more expensive than an economy car while having a little better fuel economy than an economy car. I was deciding between the Prius V vs a new Hyundai GT at the time of purchase which is cheaper but still gets 37 mpg hwy. I see where you're coming from in that it looks I may have been comparing the Volvo instead.

 

Excellent review of the two cars!

I'd venture that you don't have high mileage on your Volvo. The problems with reliability hasn't been the engines, but anything attached to the engines, particularly anything made with rubber or anything electronic. For some reason Volvo has never been able to make anything durable that contains rubber such as sealing 'O'-rings, engine mounts, suspension mounts, etc.

The rubber 'O'-ring on the oil pump doesn't cost a lot, but the labor to replace it is a king's ransom. The rubber 'O'-rings on the turbo oil return lines don't cost a lot, but you could add a new wing to your house for what the Volvo dealer will charge you to replace them.

The rubber suspension mounts are around $70, but they cost $700/side in labor to install.

Volvo doesn't use PVC in the insulation for electrical wires for environmental reasons. Unfortunately there isn't a suitable alternative with result that over time the underhood heat cooks the insulation on the engine house wiring harness and the insulation literally falls off the wires. The harness part is over $1K WITHOUT installation.

Sorry to advise but if you keep the Volvo for the long haul you'll have the unfortunate experience to understand the issues I'm speaking of.

The A-pillars are huge because the roof is four times stronger than what the Feds require.

I agree that the Prius is an econobox experience in terms of comfort but the luxury of the car is the economy and reliability. I spend four to six hours a day in my Prius and it is a punitive experience relative to the Volvo.