Ford was in a fiscal crisis leading up to our test of the 2010 Volvo XC60. Blue Ovalites were knee-deep in the sale of the Premier Automotive Group, under whose umbrella were parked its high-end hood ornaments: Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lincoln, Mercury and Volvo. In the shuffle Aston Martin was purchased by British investors. India's Tata Motors bought Jaguar and Land Rover. And Lincoln-Mercury shifted back to direct Ford control. Only Volvo remained on the auction block.
Inside Line's test of the XC60 began with the future of its maker in question. Perhaps this was the reason Volvo initially offered us a mere three-month loan of its newest crossover utility vehicle (CUV). But Volvo liked what it saw, and just days into our test decided to extend our loan to six months. Then the auctioneer's voice called. Halfway through our test Volvo was sold to the Chinese automaker Geely and priorities shifted. Six months passed and our phone didn't ring. At 12 months there was still no word from Volvo.
Why We Got It
For starters, the 2010 Volvo XC60 was an all-new model. With the optional T6 trim we got all-wheel drive and a turbocharged 3.0-liter inline-6 rated at 281 horsepower. This CUV was fun to drive. During our full test the Volvo surprised us all with its dexterity through the slalom. Only one vehicle in its class was faster through the cones. Not only was this car responsive, but it was loaded with safety nannies in case you did get in over your head. In the back of our minds, we wanted the XC60 because it was entertaining to drive. Truth be told, we didn't have a choice in the matter.
Our readers had spoken and we listened. They are the real reason we added the 2010 Volvo XC60 to the long-term blog. Comments on the blog had pleaded for another CUV in the fleet. E-mails to the editors appealed for a long-term Volvo test, noting that the last Swede to participate in the program was over five years old. We were long overdue for a family-friendly vehicle to boot. There was nothing left but to introduce the XC60.
Durability
From a mechanical standpoint we liked how the Volvo drove. We had our reservations regarding the execution of some electronic features, but we'll get back to those. In large part, the engine was our favorite element. Engineering Editor Jason Kavanagh reflected, "Lag? What lag? Our XC60 packs a turbo I-6 but you'd never know from the way it delivered torque from a standstill. It's a robust and hearty (yes, I just ate chili) mill that simply drives like a large-displacement engine. It has a nice, linear pull, even at part-throttle. A tip of the hat to modern twin-scroll turbos like the one tucked away under the Volvo's hood."
Our practical test of the electronic safety assistance gadgetry left a little to be desired. Adaptive cruise control was too conservative for our tastes. It applied the brakes so soon in reaction to approaching vehicles that it created a driving situation more awkward than beneficial. City Safety also had its moments. This attribute was at the forefront of safety technology, capable of applying the brakes up to 50 percent in the event of an unseen obstacle crossing your path. But in some situations we encountered, the system overreacted. One example occurred when it picked up parked cars on a narrow, curving road as obstacles. Once triggered, it emits an obtrusive audible warning and flashes lights on the windshield display. We found steep driveways and hills also caused false alarms. Given a choice we would probably not choose these options.
Inside the cabin, the XC60 proved quite sturdy. Light-colored seats are usually the kiss of death for durability, but not in the Volvo. Its beige-on-brown two-tone leather held up incredibly well to our abuse. Car seat installation was manageable despite the Volvo's midsize SUV stature. And the integrated child booster seats were a welcome sight for more than one parent on staff. If functional competence wasn't enough, the XC60 also satisfied our aesthetic tastes. Numerous compliments went to the easily readable and stylish gauges. And the Volvo's floating dash also received acclaim. Our main interior gripe involved the secondary controls. Their locations are counterintuitive and require too much practice for our likes. They should be more turnkey.
Volvo offers what it calls complimentary factory scheduled maintenance for the first three years or 36,000 miles on all 2010-'12 U.S-registered Volvos. Eligible vehicles receive free maintenance under the program for the first four visits. Our 2010 Volvo XC60 qualified, so we should have paid zilch for regular maintenance. At the first 7,500-mile interval we were too early and it cost us 91 bucks. From then on we learned our lesson. We stuck to the schedule, and all subsequent visits to Volvo of Santa Monica were freebies. Well, then we went and cracked the $1,000 windshield. Depth perception set us back another $5 grand when a sincere idiot tested the laws of physics in our parking lot. Inanimate objects always win. Aside from a seatbelt recall our Volvo remained mechanically sound.
Total Body Repair Costs: $4,904.45
Total Routine Maintenance Costs (over 15 months): $90.76
Additional Maintenance Costs: None
Warranty Repairs: 1 for seatbelt recall
Non-Warranty Repairs: $1,032.89 for windshield installation
Scheduled Dealer Visits: 3
Unscheduled Dealer Visits: 1
Days Out of Service: 31 in the body shop
Breakdowns Stranding Driver: None
Performance and Fuel Economy
Safety is Volvo's claim to fame. It always has been. So we were caught off-guard when the XC60 posted a 65.1-mph speed through the slalom and secured its place as the 2nd-fastest vehicle we've tested in this segment. Most buyers aren't shopping a Volvo for its handling but we found it refreshing to know it's there.
Senior Editor Josh Jacquot noted following testing, "Heavy understeer. Stability control handles the throttle admirably and instantly rather than exceeding the tires' limits, then heavily intervening. When stability control does step in, it corrects rather than punishes." Other performance tests revealed improvement with age. Around the slalom our XC60 generated 0.79g of lateral force. From a stop the Volvo reached 60 mph in 6.7 seconds (with 1 foot of rollout) and completed the quarter-mile in 15.1 seconds at 94.8 mph.
We praised the 2010 Volvo XC60 from a dynamic perspective. But something had to give. When it came to fuel economy the car was less impressive. While our best single tank of 25 mpg was evidence that the Volvo could do it, most tanks fell below 20 mpg. By the end of our test its average wasn't quite 18 mpg.
Best Fuel Economy: 25.4 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 11.3 mpg
Average Fuel Economy: 17.8 mpg
Retained Value
Our XC60 was equipped with the optional T6 trim and plenty of extras. Its MSRP was $44,240. Add a little wear and tear, some 27,000 miles to the odometer and plug it into Edmunds' TMV® Calculator. The resulting figure is a private-party sale that still garnered $33,405 from the Volvo. That amounted to 25 percent depreciation.
Previous long-term tests of luxury CUVs position the Volvo in good company. Our 2009 Infiniti FX50 also depreciated 25 percent during its test. Meanwhile, our 2008 BMW X5 was a shade higher, at 26 percent.
True Market Value at service end: $33,405
Depreciation: $10,835 or 25% of original MSRP
Final Odometer Reading: 27,662
Summing Up
Months into our long-term test of the 2010 Volvo XC60, Ford sold Volvo to Geely and our loan shifted to the back burner. We enjoyed the truck so we didn't complain after six months passed, then 12 months without an update from Volvo. By the time we returned to the radar, our XC60 test had grown to 15 months.
Fifteen months and 27,000 miles cast the Volvo in a mostly positive light. No, the XC60 wasn't perfect. It didn't achieve the fuel economy some might expect from a CUV, but it offered unexpected sportiness in exchange. There were some optional equipment-related grumbles and the secondary controls weren't the most intuitive. But the XC60 positives far outweighed the negatives. We really liked its engine. There was more low-end torque than expected from a turbo-6. It was also remarkably nimble. And resale value ranked among the leaders in its class. This car was a hit overall.
Some long-term cars end with a collective, "I didn't even know it was gone." Others earn the preemptive, "Oh, no. It's leaving. Can I schedule it for one last road trip before it goes?" The 2010 Volvo XC60 fits into the latter group. Just as this CUV stands out from others in its segment, the car separated itself from others in our test fleet. All we can hope for now is that the Geely Volvos don't lose anything in translation.
The manufacturer provided Edmunds this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.
Add A Comment »
myob says:
08:58 AM, 06/04/2011
As an XC60 R design T6 owner of nearly half a year, let me comment on a few things.
1. Fuel consumption. The testers obviously lead-footed it a lot. We're getting a little over 22mpg combined in routine use. (which is the highway rating). Driving is rural/suburban mostly short trips. I don't baby it but I don't floor it all the time either. Got 24.5mpg on a high speed 8 hour trip to Florida. (avg 72mph, with plenty of time spent near 80). We were very surprised and pleased.
2. As for CUV's not being better, a similar sized 4runner type vehicle would be hard pressed to get 18 combined and 21 highway. Weight, aerodynamics, etc matter.
3. Zero issues so far
4. Handling should be somewhat better in numbers and is definitely seat-of-the-pants better with the R design vs the one tested here. Steering is numb but grip and confidence are probably bettered only by the X3 and possibly the Audi Q5.
5. The 5 year safe and sound plan (free maint, wear and tear items, warranty) was still in effect when we bought, may still be. This is a huge advantage in cost vs other competitors who are already more expensive. It means you have mostly cost-free ownership out to an extra year, which flattens that depreciation curve.
6.That's good news on the resale value. That was probably our number one question mark going in.
7. Utility is excellent for its overall size. It just made a long distance trip with my wife driving with 3 adults and a child, one of the adults was 6-5 and over 300 lbs. The man could not fit in a 3 series, G sedan, or other car of that size. He fit fine in the Volvo's front seat. The cargo area folds very flat, unlike some others. And unlike wagons, there is enough height back there for large dog crates, bulky items, etc.
8. It really does seem to get a bad rap on fuel economy. I suspect the 3.2 is no better due to having to work harder.
olliegark says:
11:45 AM, 03/28/2011
I too have a V50. It's a 2009 AWD R-Design which has been a lot of fun to drive. Several days ago it was hit in the left rear quarter and the insurance company has declared the car a total loss. The car did everything it was supposed to in an accident. Side airbags deployed and the passenger compartment maintained its integrity.
I just drove an XC-60 and was impressed with it's build quality and nimble handling for a vehicle of its size and weight. Volvo's emphasis on safety is invaluable and the fact that it performs so well makes it an obvious choice for me. I would, however, get another V50 if it were available.
eurocarlover19 says:
04:12 PM, 03/25/2011
to add to the Subaru comments--went to the auto show yesterday, sat in all the subarus and the went right next door to the volvo exhibit and sat in all of them. The difference in feel and build quality is immediately evident. the subaru loses hands down. the cheap feeling plastics, the hollow sound when you close the doors--awful. Volvo has a solid THUNK when you close the front door, the feel is obviously more premium. Subaru:poor man's Volvo(and yes i know Subaru outsells Volvo by like 10 to 1)..Will be getting the XC60 T6 AWD R-Design shortly, as I was very impressed with the drive today.
agentorange says:
12:39 PM, 03/25/2011
Those fuel consumption numbers convince me that the staffers at Edmunds only shop for shoes at Feet of Lead.
compressor says:
07:56 AM, 03/25/2011
Good thing you had AWD on that "snowy" road.
As for depreciation, I find all used cars overpriced and I am amazed that people are willing to shell out so much for a used car. I guess the dealer tactic of asking crazy high prices is starting to work on a culture that is afraid to look cheap.
piredon says:
06:58 AM, 03/25/2011
Very interested in this vehicle, overall. Have a V50 with 90k miles on it, and Volvo is no longer selling this model in the US after this year. Haven't been able to get AWD for 2 years on the V50 now, so it's out. It's a shame really, it's been a great little car, and other than wear items like brakes and wheel bearings, 100% reliable. But it will probably have to go soon, and the XC60 is definitely a possible replacement. The XC70 is too "old" for my wife, and I think the XC90 is too big. We will avoid all the electro-nannies because I've never cared for them when I've had experiences with them in other cars. Will probably also avoid a built in Nav system, because portable systems are much more practical. Love the styling. Think Volvo seats are the most comfortable of any car. Love the fact that it's not nearly as ostentatious as a BMW or Mercedes Benz.
Only real concern: fuel economy. 18mpg is pretty pathetic in this day and age for a small SUV. A 4-cyl Q5 can easily average low 20s mileage, and isn't really any slower. A 6-cyl X3 can do the same, and the turbo X3 will absolutely shame this thing in terms of speed, while still getting better mileage. The only thing worse on fuel in this category is probably the GLK. Message to Volvo: work on the fuel economy, first.
Offsetting factor: the free maintenance probably makes up for the additional fuel cost when comparing to the Q5, which does not offer free maintenance. And the X3 is simply more expensive than the XC60. So if cost is the main concern, the crappy mpg isn't such an issue, assuming gas doesn't go to $6, in which case none of these vehicles will be practical, and we'll all be buying tdi sportwagens.
The Subaru Outback does make a lot more sense, for a number of reasons: lower price, more interior space, better fuel economy. But I agree with myob...I don't really WANT an Outback. I WANT one of these.
Oh, and what's with the diesel tachometer on the 3rd tab, "Driver Alert Time for a break"? I can tell it's a diesel and not the t6 by the 5000 rpm redline. And what fantastic turbo-diesel do they offer in Europe on this thing anyway? Probably a 5 cylinder with 200+ hp and nearly 400 lb-ft of torque, right? That we'll never see? Ah, jealousy...
wikiwiki says:
06:03 AM, 03/25/2011
Do people still actually buy into "CUVs" being better and more frugal on gas than "SUVs"? That marketing ploy for the masses never sold me and I laugh at the clowns who think they are driving something that has an SUV utility and sedan performance and MPG. Dummies.
greenpony says:
04:50 AM, 03/25/2011
veryhrm: "Getting cars from the manufacturers raises some questions about how representative they are. At the very least they'll have an extra quality check or two over what the normal consumer would get"
A couple comments. Depending on what line of work you're in, if you send a sample of your product to someone, you want it to get a good review. The extra quality checks prior to providing a vehicle to an automag for evaluation shouldn't come as a surprise, although I will admit that if the company's overall quality is sub-par, going over every inch of a loaner vehicle isn't going to give consumers a wholly accurate representation of what they could expect. Which brings me to my second comment. If the manufacturer's quality system is robust enough, the extra checks are completely unneccesary and will reveal zero defects. For a company like Volvo, I'd bet on the latter. (Geely is another matter).
myob says:
09:16 PM, 12/09/2010
And the Subaru will be:
1) uglier
2) slower
3) not as nicely appointed; and
4) It won't handle any better even though it gives up the higher seating position and visability advantages of the crossover.
The R design has since come out and handles and looks much better than this XC60. They've also bumped up hp and torque considerably.
Cars are about more than practicality. If one is shopping $40K crossovers and reading an auto website where they comment on things like performance and looks, I assumed that was obvious. I don't know about you, but if I have to spend hours of time in the thing and clean it and pay for its upkeep, I want to actually like the way it looks and for it to be at least a little fun to drive.
When Subaru learns how to style a car and put in a nice interior, I'll be first in line to buy one.
204meca says:
03:02 PM, 01/13/2010
You said: When we noted that readers were asking for a few more utility-oriented vehicles in our long-term test fleet.
I agree with 1st wagon sentiment, the all new Subaru Outback would be a great addition to your long term fleet nicely filling the niche for "a utility oriented vehicle". Since you only have this Volvo for 3 months, now would be great time to start trolling for a 2010 Outback.