Great Volvo XC60 lease available
12-29-15, 09:41 AM
#16
12-30-15, 09:01 AM
#17
We also looked at the Volvo with it's history of safety and sleek new look however the limited tow capacity knocked this one off our list of potentials.
In the end it was a down to the QX80 and Yukon Denali which really commands the market share in full size SUV's. Sadly Lexus has nothing in this hot category.
We ended up picking the GMC for it's overall toughness, space, and power. It does everything well and tows our enclosed trailer equally well as hauling the kids around town. This is our first American car in many years and don't regret it one bit. We have since retired our ML to strict workhorse duty now. Surprisingly as icing on the cake we can manage 18-20 mpg on the highway when it deactivates 4 of the cylinders!
In the end it was a down to the QX80 and Yukon Denali which really commands the market share in full size SUV's. Sadly Lexus has nothing in this hot category.
We ended up picking the GMC for it's overall toughness, space, and power. It does everything well and tows our enclosed trailer equally well as hauling the kids around town. This is our first American car in many years and don't regret it one bit. We have since retired our ML to strict workhorse duty now. Surprisingly as icing on the cake we can manage 18-20 mpg on the highway when it deactivates 4 of the cylinders!
12-30-15, 09:33 AM
#18
I have my doubts about the long term reliability of the 2.0 4 cylinder in the XC90. Its turbocharged and supercharged to make 316hp. That is a lot of complexity and a lot of air moving through a 2.0 4 cylinder to make that sort of power. You're going to need to be constantly in boost to make enough power to move this 5000lb suv, as I'm sure its a gutless wonder off boost. So its going to be constantly strained.
The whole reason everybody has gone turbo mad is that they do get better fuel economy off boost in EPA fuel economy tests. In normal driving they've proven to get no better to even worse economy than a larger, naturally aspirated engine with more cylinders making similar power. I've read a couple of reviews of the new XC90, they were all getting 17-18mpg when the XC90 is rated at 20 city/25 hwy.
The whole reason everybody has gone turbo mad is that they do get better fuel economy off boost in EPA fuel economy tests. In normal driving they've proven to get no better to even worse economy than a larger, naturally aspirated engine with more cylinders making similar power. I've read a couple of reviews of the new XC90, they were all getting 17-18mpg when the XC90 is rated at 20 city/25 hwy.
12-31-15, 10:23 AM
#19
I have my doubts about the long term reliability of the 2.0 4 cylinder in the XC90. Its turbocharged and supercharged to make 316hp. That is a lot of complexity and a lot of air moving through a 2.0 4 cylinder to make that sort of power. You're going to need to be constantly in boost to make enough power to move this 5000lb suv, as I'm sure its a gutless wonder off boost. So its going to be constantly strained.
The whole reason everybody has gone turbo mad is that they do get better fuel economy off boost in EPA fuel economy tests. In normal driving they've proven to get no better to even worse economy than a larger, naturally aspirated engine with more cylinders making similar power. I've read a couple of reviews of the new XC90, they were all getting 17-18mpg when the XC90 is rated at 20 city/25 hwy.
The whole reason everybody has gone turbo mad is that they do get better fuel economy off boost in EPA fuel economy tests. In normal driving they've proven to get no better to even worse economy than a larger, naturally aspirated engine with more cylinders making similar power. I've read a couple of reviews of the new XC90, they were all getting 17-18mpg when the XC90 is rated at 20 city/25 hwy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
drivemycar
RX - 3rd Gen (2010-2015)
0
07-02-18 08:53 AM