View Full Version : Detailed Euro XC60 Review

09-17-2013, 03:35 PM
Here is a detailed review of my Volvo XC60 D5 in England in case anyone is interested...


The Volvo XC60 is a 4x4 that is classy, luxurious, understated, comfortable and practical. Let’s face it, not everybody actually wants that! Some people might prefer their 4x4 to look more rugged (think Jeep). Others might prefer something more flashy (think Range Rover). Others might prefer something that makes them feel like Formula One champions despite a crop of kids in the back (think BMW). Different vehicles appeal to people for different reasons, and some people are never going to be convinced by the rather logically designed XC60. But if you are in the market for a genuinely good all-rounder, here is what I hope is an unbiased user review of what the XC60 is really like.


(Okay, you can tell I’m male, because if I was a woman there is no way I would begin a car review talking about engines!)

The Volvo XC60 was introduced in 2008 (although they were called 2009 models and virtually none reached roads before 2009). The 2010 models onwards got better engines with significantly better fuel economy.

There are two main diesel engine options called D4 and D5. Despite the name the D4 is the same 5-cylinder 2.4 litre engine as the D5, simply detuned to provide less power (165 PS instead of 215 PS). Bizarrely the slower D4 engine uses exactly the same amount of fuel as the quicker D5.

The best D5s – the 2010 and later ones – can be identified by the power output, which is 205 PS (2010-2012) and 215 PS (2013-2014). I find the 205 and 215 indistinguishable to drive, but both are significantly better than the older version of the D5: that older one not only had less horsepower, it had less torque over a narrower rev range, it sounded slightly coarser, and it used significantly more fuel. The 205 and 215 D5s gained two turbochargers instead of one: one turbo kicks in sooner than the other, widening the torque band.

These biturbo D5s are smooth, quiet, powerful engines - at least for diesels. Under hard acceleration they can be heard, but the engine note is reasonably pleasant - unlike some of the latest 4 cylinder engines from Mercedes and Audi, which I find surprisingly rough if pushed. The D5’s unusual 5-cylinder arrangement means it has a slight burble to it, faintly like an American V8, which I quite enjoy the sound of (to be honest I suspect that is a subtlety some people won’t notice or care about!) No vibration whatsoever is detectable through the pedals or steering wheel, unlike some competitors’ diesels. The D5 is quite fast, reaching 60mph in about 8 seconds. Let's face it, you will never need more speed than that!

Two wheel drive and four wheel drive options are available. The 2 wheel drive version saves only a very small amount of fuel over the 4 wheel drive.

So if you can afford it I suggest you might want to go for a 4 wheel drive D5 made in 2010 or later. The badge on the back will say D5 AWD. If it doesn’t say AWD, it’s front wheel drive only. The dealer’s description will usually say “D5 205 AWD” or “D5 215 AWD” which tells you it is one of the more recent, more fuel-efficient engines. If it says “D5 185” it is one of the less fuel-efficient older models.

The fuel efficiency of the 2010 and later XC60s is not bad, but not exceptional. In real world mixed driving with short trips and traffic jams and every other hindrance to economy that we face these days, I get 35 miles per gallon with my 2010 automatic AWD D5. I reach 40 mpg only on long steady drives. I wish the fuel economy was better, but it is probably reasonable given that most competing 4x4s seem to achieve similar economy. For instance the BMW X3 is fractionally more fuel efficient and the BMW X5 fractionally less, as you might expect given that the Volvo XC60 is sized between these two. (For the 2015 model year, Volvo is in the process of releasing new 2-litre engines which are more fuel efficient. These are technically advanced four-cylinder units with both turbochargers and superchargers!)

In America a 6 cylinder petrol engine is usual, and that is also excellent (arguably the best of the range in some ways) but its terrible fuel economy means it accounts for only 3% of Volvo XC60 sales in Europe.


The automatic gearbox is more common than the manual, and it is a very good auto box. The 6 speed auto is superbly smooth and effortless, with gear changes usually being undetectable. You simply never notice the gearbox when driving – which is as it should be. (Older versions of this gearbox were not as smooth.) There is one downside, even with the latest version: the automatic gearbox uses roughly 20% more fuel than the manual. That is disappointing. A few manufacturers are now launching auto gearboxes that are as efficient as manuals, but Volvo isn’t there yet.


The Volvo XC60’s cabin is highly sound insulated, which makes it one of the most hushed motorway drives available. This might sound a little crazy, but driving an XC60 reminds me slightly of driving Mercedes’ top of the range model, the S-Class. A diesel S-Class is smooth, quiet and effortless. An XC60 is not as hushed as an S-Class, of course, but the point is that it is a little more like an S-Class than most of its rivals are. If you want your 4x4 to drive like a “loud and hard sports car”, the effortless sensation of the XC60 might not appeal to you.

The Volvo’s suspension is very good. It seems to me to strike the right balance of comfort and handling. This is in contrast to some of the latest German suspensions which I feel are becoming insanely hard: a total nightmare when faced with the grim reality of British roads. Those in the know will be aware that Ford Europe makes some of the world’s best suspension. Well, Ford helped design the Volvo XC60’s suspension, and it reminds me of the Ford S-Max suspension. The XC60 absorbs road surfaces well and corners well. It stays quite level when cornering and can be chucked around more than you might think. For actual daily driving, I feel Volvo have got it just right. They’re not silly, those Volvo designers, they get things right for real people in the real world. Maybe that sounds a bit too sensible!

By the way, there is also an R-Design version of the XC60 which has harder suspension. I haven’t tried the R-Design – “Road Design” – because it seems to me if you want a lower, harder, more road-biased car why not just buy one instead of an XC60?

Wheel size also makes a difference to the XC60’s ride quality. The 17 inch rims offer the best ride quality, followed by the 18 inch ones (most XC60s now come with 18 inchers as standard). Nineteen and 20 inch rims are available as options, but are best avoided unless you are prepared to sacrifice comfort for looks.


The Volvo XC60’s seats are fantastic! Many in the industry say that Volvo makes the best car seats in the world. Maybe seat quality seems like a minor consideration when shopping for a car, but actually seats are really important. You will never enjoy driving a car if its seats are bugging you. Some competitors’ seats are surprisingly uncomfortable, sometimes because they are trying to make them look “sporty”, and sometimes because the comfort features are optional extras. For example, some German brands make adjustable lumbar support an optional extra! Volvo gives you superb, highly adjustable seats as standard in every model.

I particularly enjoy the electric seats in my SE Lux version of the XC60. The seat remembers my setting and my wife’s setting, and effortlessly changes between the two settings depending on who is driving. Magic! Another reason the XC60 is particularly comfortable for the driver is the highly adjustable steering wheel. All XC60s steering wheels are adjustable for height and reach. My advice is that you should never buy a car lacking reach adjustment: having the steering wheel in the wrong place for your size is going to irritate you every time you drive.

The rear seats have reasonably good legroom – slightly more than the larger XC90, believe it or not (although of course the XC90 has to fit in a third row of seats). However the XC60's rear seats do not slide forwards and backwards, a feature some competitors now offer. If the driver is a really tall person who has the front seat all the way back, an adult will struggle to fit behind. Personally I hoped the XC60 would have slightly more rear seat legroom than it actually does, but that's just me expecting too much!

The rear seats consist of two excellent seats, with a narrow third seat in the middle. Some other vehicles of this width offer three proper seats, but not the XC60. If you have two people in the back, they will love the seating - but if you have three, one of them is going to complain. Two child seats work well, but three child seats will drive you crazy, because the seatbelt buckles will be under the middle seat - so awkward to buckle up!

Load Lugging

If load lugging is important to you, the XC60 is one of the best 4x4s out there. The XC60’s rear seats fold flat really easily and really … flatly. You can flip the seats flat with one lift of a lever, and the resulting load bay is totally flat. No 'almost-but-not-quite-flat' seats, no weird ridges remaining, just totally flat. I always think every 4x4 should be designed like this and am amazed when they are not. For example the new Ford Kuga and Honda CRV are both unable to offer totally flat load space. Even the larger Audi Q5 can’t do it. Hopeless!

To add insult to injury, many 4x4s have front passenger seats that hardly tilt forward, whereas the Volvo XC60’s front passenger seat flips virtually flat.

Sound system and technology

The sound system of the Volvo XC60 is pretty amazing. What is even more amazing is that it comes as standard - I don’t think any of Volvo’s competitors offer such a great stereo at no extra cost. You can specify an extra subwoofer in the boot floor if you want, but frankly you won’t need it: the standard stereo has a decent amount of powerful, tightly controlled bass. It’s not just about brute wattage, either: the XC60’s stereo also offers beautiful, delicate mid-range and high notes. Top marks to Volvo for a stunning sound system!

The system is also quite good for the ease with which modern audio sources such as iPods can be connected. Hands-free phone connection is also a breeze. In fact the Volvo is pretty good for technology in general – most of it as standard. My only slight criticism of the older models is that the information display is a slightly retro-looking black and white panel (you can see the pixels – how twentieth century is that?) The latest models finally offer a nice high-resolution colour panel. I won’t go into too much detail about the tech toys except to point out one thing: an XC60 could cost you about 25% less to insure than some 4x4s because insurance companies have found that its anti-collision automatic braking system reduces insurance claims by about 25%. That is a very genuine benefit, not just some token tech toy!

While on the subject of safety, the XC60 is the world’s safest 4x4, as proved by official NCAP results. I hope I never need to test that!

Off road

How does the Volvo XC60 perform off road? Not so different from most of its rivals, I suspect. Like most of the competition, Volvo uses the Haldex four wheel drive system. So when the going gets rough the XC60 is not going to be hugely different from the VW Tiguan, Skoda Yeti, Land Rover Freelander and so on, because they all use the Haldex system.

Given this similarity, the way I see it, two main things are going to make some difference for off-roading: tyres and ground clearance.

Road tyres slip easily in muddy conditions, and the only solution is to use off-road tyres. But let’s face it, no one fits serious off-road tyres on these modern “softroaders”. So they are all limited by their tyres and that’s just the way it is.

Ground clearance is obviously important for off-roading. Serious off-roaders such as the Land Rover Discovery have height-adjustable suspension. Set them to road mode, they lower. Set them to off-road mode, they rise up. That is the best way to achieve great ground clearance. All the milder 4x4s such as the XC60 do not have this feature, so they are never going to match the hard core 4x4s. But there are differences among the “mild bunch”. Some German 4x4s have only 7 inches of ground clearance, whereas the Volvo XC60 has 9 inches. It doesn’t look like a high 4x4, but if you peer under the XC60, you will see it is totally flat under there. In contrast, many other 4x4s give the impression of being as high as the XC60, until you peer under them, when you see a lot more of the “guts” such as the exhaust pipe hanging down. So the good design of the Volvo XC60’s underside means it actually has the best ground clearance of the mild 4x4s. It’s as though somebody at Volvo actually thought about this stuff!

I’m not sure I should admit this, but I have taken my Volvo XC60 up an insanely rough track up a hill, and frankly I couldn’t believe how well it did. I found that the XC60 coped with massive potholes and ruts that looked impassable. I think the reason for this frankly surprising success was twofold: one, decent ground clearance, and two, the ascent was attempted on a dry summer day and traction was not too challenging. I would not like to attempt that track in the rain!

There is perhaps one other reason the XC60’s off-road ability impresses: it was partly designed by Land Rover. They keep quiet about it these days, but Ford owned both companies at the time the XC60 was developed, and apparently Volvo was given the job of getting the XC60’s on-road behaviour right while Land Rover was given the job of getting its off-road behaviour right. That is why the XC60 has Land Rover’s Hill Descent Control.

However, let’s face it, 99% of owners are never going to test the limits of the XC60’s mud-plugging ability.


One thing to be aware of with the XC60 is its size. This is a larger vehicle than it looks. It is about 1.9 metres wide by 4.6 metres long. That is wider than many popular European 4x4s such as the VW Tiguan, Skoda Yeti, Honda CRV, Nissan Qashqai and BMW X3. It is almost as big as some of the “behemoths” such as the Land Rover Discovery, VW Touareg, BMW X5 and Porsche Cayenne. This means the XC60 has good interior space, but it can be difficult to park in tight British parking spaces. You might be able to park in a busy Sainsbury’s supermarket car park, but you might struggle to open your doors wide enough to actually get out! Personally, I wish Volvo had made the XC60 an inch or two narrower. But I realise wide cars are in vogue. Plus, wide cars work perfectly well in many international markets where roads and parking spaces are less cramped than in Britain.


Let’s face it, all modern cars are fantastically reliable. The Volvo XC60 certainly is.

The latest large survey I have seen, the UK’s Which Car Survey 2013, found the XC60 to be more reliable than most 4x4s: it came sixth out of thirty vehicles. It beat all the German brands. It was found to be better than any models by Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Volkswagen, Kia, Nissan, Subaru, Land Rover and more. The only 4x4s that beat it were a Toyota, a Lexus, two Hondas and a Ford.

Of course that is just one survey, and results vary between surveys, but most surveys find XC60 reliability to be average or better than average. We have to remember that "average" is very reliable these days. I think it is fair to say we can feel confident about the XC60’s reliability.


The Volvo XC60 has very few annoyances, I find. This kind of sums up the XC60: it's just a very good all round kind of vehicle. The annoyances I could list are almost ridiculously minor. The electric handbrake seems to offer no benefit over a normal lever handbrake. The powered tailgate (an optional extra) seems to offer no benefit over a manual tailgate. Yes, it opens and shuts itself, but it's a little bit too slow to be truly convenient. In some markets (such as the UK) the headlights are always on, so the position on the light switch marked "Off" is actually "On". That's a bit bizarre. I have the premium headlights, and I do not feel they are worth the extra cost. The leather seats have fantastic quality leather, but perhaps they are just a tiny bit slippery: the fabric seats might be the most sensible choice. The Sat Nav is okay, but for less money you could buy an iPad and enjoy more sophisticated Sat Nav on that. Overall, my suggestion is this: avoid the options. They hike the price of the XC60 alarmingly. Focus on getting the best D5 engine in a reasonably base model (even the base models are more luxurious than competing German vehicles). Perhaps one extra worth getting is front parking sensors (beepers). In most markets the XC60 comes with rear parking beepers only. But the shape of the bonnet makes the front of the car impossible to see, so if you need to park in tight spaces, the front beeper option may be worthwhile.


Overall, the Volvo XC60 strikes me as a well designed product that is hard to fault. Maybe that is its one fault – the XC60 could be accused of being too darn sensible. It is so well balanced that it might not be zany enough for some people! Some competing vehicles are perhaps not as good for real daily use, but they offer something that customers want. Maybe it’s “bling”, maybe it’s a preference for a more butch look, maybe it’s about customers having dreams of being racing drivers. Whatever it is, it’s probably not logical, but often purchasing decisions are not logical.

Let’s face it, Volvo as a brand is likely to appeal to some people and not others, and that will affect whether the XC60 appeals to you. I drive through an area that is “aspirational”, and German 4x4s are the most popular there. People desperate to prove they are successful want the image that German vehicles provide. They’re probably struggling to make the payments, but they’ve got the look. I never see a Volvo XC60 in that area.

I drive through another area that is very wealthy. These people don’t need to prove anything to anybody. The Volvo XC60 and XC90 are remarkably popular vehicles there. They outnumber BMW 4x4s. (I suspect some of these genuinely wealthy people are starting to regard BMW as a bit too popular with “wannabees”.)

I’m not knocking either group of people, I’m just making the observation that some people seem to regard Volvos as not flash enough, while others seem to regard Volvos as some of the most tasteful cars. You will have to decide for yourself where your view lies.

Another factor affecting the success of the XC60 is the sheer number of quality 4x4s competing with it. There are just so many good 4x4s that it can be almost impossible to pick one. For instance, I have experience of (and rate highly) these ones: Lexus RS450h, Nissan Qashqai, Honda CRV, Ford Kuga, VW Toureg, VW Tiguan, Skoda Yeti, Land Rover Discovery. That’s a long list of strong contenders. You would probably enjoy any of those vehicles. There is no wrong choice. If I was using strict logic, the Nissan Qashqai is excellent and quite cheap, so logically that is a great buy. Yet I didn’t buy one because it looks rather bland to me, and it just doesn’t excite me. There you go: I rejected a logical choice for illogical reasons.

Despite all those strong contenders, whenever I get into my Volvo XC60 I’m glad I chose it. The interior is just so sumptuous, the driving is just such a pleasure, the practically is just so great. If you are in the market for this sort of vehicle, you absolutely must test drive the Volvo XC60. Even if you end up buying something else, at least you will have experienced the XC60's sheer pleasantness!

09-20-2013, 12:54 PM
Brilliant review GPX!

I bought a '10 3.0T XC60 (yes, the "thirsty" petrol one) early this year with just more than 40.000 miles on the odo ... and I have enjoyed every minute of it so far! As you will see from my signature, I kept a '02 XC70 with a performance tune (177kW, 390Nm), but this fact is only relevant here as I do use my XC for some off-road (but not serious 4x4) driving.

What I want to report is that I was invited to the '14 XC60 launch a week or so ago, where I had the opportunity to experience some of the safety and off-road features that come standard in all XC60's. I experienced the XC60 on an off-road track that I would not have dreamed to take mine on, and was treated to Hill Descent Control in what felt like a 45% decline ... We were also exposed to City Safety (the auto brake capability if you come too close to a stationary or moving object at city speeds) and - most scary but also comforting - the roll protection system, which Volvo pioneered on the XC90 but which really works when (in the live run) the driver tries to turn 90 degrees at a speed of 100 km/h (just over 60 mph).

Maybe not the sexiest or the best mid-size SUV around, but to quote the road test of a local motoring magazine when first tested after the 2009 launch: ... SUV's don't come much better than the XC60.

I agree. As much as I liked my XC70, I really enjoy the XC60 more - especially now that I had experienced the safety features of the XC60.

Oh, petrol vs. diesel? Of course I can only dream about the fuel consumption that GPX mentions, but what the heck. You only live once and there is no way that the D5 can match the T6 for pure enjoyment. In fact, there is a Polestar upgrade in my future! ... until I get to the pump to fill up, that is!!

09-22-2013, 06:49 AM
"Fuel" in context of "economy" was mentioned 11 times. I'd say, fuel economy is a cornerstone of the whole review. This is Europe :)

09-22-2013, 05:46 PM
I was just going to let this "review" slide without comment but haven read it a second time its clear the writer is just not wearing one - but in fact several pairs of rose-coloured glasses. Please don't get me wrong, the XC60 is a fine vehicle but its not exactly perfect. I come from a background of Volvos with our current second car being a C30 T5 which we are currently seriously considering replacing with a V40 CC. We've had test drives of the others (1-Series, A class, A3 etc) but in our mind the V40 is the car to beat in this market segment.

Since perhaps the introduction of the C30, Volvo have produced some of the best looking cars around. In my opinion the XC60 is the best looking mid-sized SUV around - its got character which immediately identifies it as a Volvo no matter what angle you look from. Many of the other mid-sized SUVs look as if they where cut from the same sheetmetal - ie boring. But the one area where Volvo have been badly let down over the years - and continue to be so - is in the technology of their engines and transmissions. Their engines are at least a generation or two behind their competitors. The new VEA engines due to be rolled out across the range next year can't come soon enough. The initial press reviews of these new engines (and a new 8-speed auto to replace the current 6-speed) are certainly encouraging.

But I'm sorry GPX, but Volvo's D5 diesel in particular is perhaps the worst of Volvo's current engines. It is certainly remarkable that Volvo can get 215 hp from a 2.4l engine (even more with the Polestar tune). And as GPX noted, for a diesel its fuel economy is certainly not a class leader. But the biggest problem with it is the noise it makes under load. It sounds like a tractor. How anyone could describe the engine sound as "pleasant" is beyond my comprehension. Credit where credit is due - over the last couple of years Volvo have some ground on improving this but its still a major turnoff. 2 years ago when we were looking at replacing our '05 XC70, we spent considerable time test driving both a XC70 D5 and XC60 D5 including two Saturday-Monday unaccompanied test drives over subsequent weekends. Besides the conclusion that the XC60 was a much better drive than the XC70, the D5 engine and its sound under load was the biggest letdown. I'm the first to admit that some of the 2.0l 4-clylinder diesels from BMW/Audi etc aren't much better - but they are better. In the end we ended up getting an X3 30d and the main deciding factor was its engine. In terms of smoothness the 6 cylinder diesel (as does Audi's V6 3.0TDI in the Q5) runs rings around Volvo's D5 engine. Combine this an engine which has the performance of the XC60 T6 but arguably better fuel economy then the XC60 D5, in the end we went with the X3. I do admit that if the comparison had been between the X3 20d and the XC60 D5, we probably would have stuck with the Volvo. Yes, as I said above the XC60 is better looking than the X3, but as I spend my time inside the car driving it, external looks and what people may think of them really don't count much with me. It also cost more than the equivalently spec'ed XC60, but I'll get most of that back in improved resale value (depreciation on Volvo's in Australia is much higher than BMW/Audi/M-B). And for those readers at least in the US (not sure about Canada), BMW are scheduled to introduce their 30d engine into the X3 either later this year or early next year.

Then there's Volvo's 6-speed auto transmission. Again over the years Volvo have done wonders to improve the calibration and speed of this 6-speed auto. When it was first appeared in the MY07/08 S80/V70/XC70 it had its problems of poor calibration with clunky gear changes. But its got better but still no where near as smooth and seamless as BMW's 8-speed in the X3 or Audi's 7-speed DSG in the Q5. One hopes that when Volvo introduces their new 8-speed auto (which apparently paddle shifters) across the range next year that they will at least be up there with the best.

The one area where I absolutely agree with GPX are the Volvo seats - they are the best in the business. After 2 years and over 40,000 kms in the X3, while the BMW seats are certainly adequate, they are not in the same class as Volvo seats. At the end of a 10 hour drive in the X3, I'm pleased to arrive at my destination. With the seats (at least in my '05 XC70) I felt I could turn the car around and head back for another 10 hours of driving.

Ride quality - I found ride quality on the XC60 varied significantly between 17" and 18" wheels (and the subsequent lower profile tyres). The ride was great on the 17" wheels but I felt a little firm on the 18". But yes before you mention it, the ride on the X3 with its runflats is even worse. Which is why on delivery 2 years ago we replaced the standard runflats with conventional tyres (and a full size spare tied down in the back). The end result is a ride quality on poorly maintained regional roads and dirt roads which is at least the equal of the ride we had on our old XC70.

Two relatively minor issues we also had with the XC60 was the location and action of the electronic hand brake and the blind on the panoramic roof. The location of the switch for the electronic handbrake down low on the drivers side is plain stupid. I know the explanation from Volvo is that its a safety feature in that only the driver can access it. But how is it that the motoring world has survived all those years with the conventional mechanical handbrake being located between the front seats? Every other car manufacturer with an electronic handbrake has managed to put the switch on the centre console without the world coming to an end. Its simply "political correctness" gone mad. The location of the switch wouldn't be a big issue if Volvo had combined the electronic handbrake with an auto-hold feature like BMW have done with the X3 and Audi with the Q5. The auto-hold on our X3 works absolutely brilliantly and is almost worth the price of entry. Volvo need to catch up with the rest of the motoring world and combine their electronic handbrake with an auto-hold function (and don't confuse auto-hold with the auto-release function which the XC60 does have). I find it intriguing that on Volvo's most recent release - the V40 - they have gone back to a conventional mechanical handbrake between the front seats.

The blind on the panoramic roof XC60 is only a light fabric-type blind. That might satisfy some people but here in what is classified as sub-tropical Brisbane it doesn't cut it. By comparison, the X3 has a solid blind.

So in conclusion, while I agree Volvo are producing some of the best looking and best riding (in terms of a compromise between ride quality and handling), its the technology of their engines in particular that remain their weak point. I sincerely hope for the survival of the Volvo brand that when they do introduce their new engines and transmission across the Volvo range next year that they (ie the engines) are at least the equal of their competitors. For ourselves, we are currently deciding whether to replace our C30 with a V40 now, or wait 6-12 months for the new engines to come on-line.


10-05-2013, 01:23 PM
I agree with the comment about the handbrake not being great. I mean, it's fine, but in what way is it supposed to be better than a traditional handbrake?

Here's a weird thing: my automatic gearbox is totally slick, smooth, quick, faultless. I have read reviews that say it is hesitant, slow, etc. If mine was like that I would definitely say so. But mine seems great. What's going on? Have I just got an unusually good one? Or has Volvo improved the box? Or am I deluded? I just don't know.

Same with the D5 engine, actually. Mine seems pretty quiet and pleasant-sounding. And let me tell you, I hate the sound of rough diesels. If mine was rough I would say so. I drove a Mercedes sports car recently, the new SLK 250 CDI (a four-cylinder diesel) and that diesel sounded rough and annoying. The Volvo is definitely better than that. I'm not saying the D5 sounds better than 6 cylinder diesels, but it certainly sounds better than the 4-cylinder diesels common in Audi, BMW and Mercedes competitors in Europe. Of course I bet I would like the Volvo gasoline engine even more, but in the UK with gasoline costing US$8.50 per gallon, it's just not viable.

10-11-2013, 11:08 AM
I just had a thought - if you are in the US and used to the gasoline engine, don't order a diesel without test driving one first. They're definitely rumblier/rougher than a gasoline engine, and you might not like it. I'm quite impressed with mine compared to competitors' 4-cylinder diesels, but compared to a 6-cylinder gasoline engine, well....