SWEDE TASTE OF SUCCESS
The new XC90 SUV seems destined to be another hit for Volvo. But is it good enough to beat a BMW X5 and a Land Rover Discovery?
There is a foregone conclusion in some tests. A car that, before you’ve even read the story, you would bet good money on winning. Anything involving a Porsche 911 GT3 RS, for example. But this isn’t one of those features. Any of the three cars here is capable of winning this test, and I know this because, even as I write, I’m not convinced that I’m sure on which car’s bid the hammer will fall. The three cars in this test are among the most different in character yet most competitive set of cars that I’ve tested in a long while.
The reason they’re lined up at all is, of course, the arrival of the latest Volvo XC90, the new flagship SUV from the revitalised Swedish company.
This D5 model — a nomenclature that would once have bagged you a five-cylinder diesel of large capacity — is a 2.0-litre fourpot diesel-turbo making 222hp and 470Nm of torque. It drives all four wheels through an eight-speed automatic gearbox.
The XC90 goes up against two cars of a similar ilk. BMW’s X5 is most like the XC90 in ethos. It, too, has a steel monocoque, and this 25d model also has a 2.0-litre diesel-turbo driving all four wheels through an eight-speed automatic. Its engine makes 228hp and 500Nm of torque.
And then there’s the oldest stager here, Land Rover’s Discovery. It survives from a time when Land Rover’s braces-and-belt combo gave it chassis rails that were topped by a monocoque, which was strong but gave it a kerb weight of 2,504kg. The claimed kerb weights for both the BMW and the Volvo are half a tonne lighter.
The Land Rover’s engine is also 50% bigger, toting two extra cylinders that give it an additional litre of capacity. Its 3.0-litre V6 makes 253hp and a monster 600Nm, but don’t think that gives it any kind of straight-line advantage in this company. The claimed acceleration time from 0-100kph is 8.8sec for the Land Rover, compared with times of 7.7sec for the BMW and 7.8sec for the Volvo.
The Discovery, then, will have a task on its hands to be the car of choice here. But it’s where I start. And do you know what? It’s not a bad place to start at all, for lots of eminently sensible Land Rover-ish reasons.
A Discovery seats you high because the car beneath you is rugged. And you feel as though you’re seated even higher than that, because the glass area is broad and the window line is low.
Because the edges of the bonnet are squared off, you can easily see where the Discovery ends. The mirrors are huge, the sides of the car are squared off, too, and the
glass on the split tailgate’s upper half dips to aid rear visibility. The cabin’s fit and finish do likewise. Sure, it’s plush enough, but it’s a busy cabin, with a lot of different finishes and chunky buttons. The X5 cabin feels much like any other
upper- end BMW’s: ergonomically sound and with an iDrive system that the Discovery
cannot match. There’s a broadly adjustable, far more car-like driving position than in the Land Rover. All of this comes with greater
interior austerity. The window line is high, so less light gets in, particularly in the back. The XC90’s cabin — and it is exemplary — has a window line that begins at more like the BMW’s height, although it stays flatter and is more airy in the rear, and the driver is treated to a massively adjustable driving position. It’s cleanly and crisply designed inside, with first-rate fit and finish, choice materials and an absence of buttons allowed by an
excellent large central touchscreen display that responds as quickly as a smartphone’s. Although the interior of this test car had a dark finish, it feels less serious and conservative than the BMW. Volvo hasn’t been
afraid to express its personality inside and it turns out that Volvo’s personality is easy to rub along with.
Rubbing along is easy to do in the Land Rover, too. To drive, the Discovery feels every inch the relaxed, loping 4x4 that its interior and key statistics suggested it would be.
It fires to a refined and muted idle and has a leisurely but easily metered response to throttle applications — all the better offroad or when manoeuvring at low speeds. The steering is slow, too, with 3.4 turns lock to lock. But this is all fine.
The secondary ride is extremely well isolated and body control, thanks to air springing, isn’t poor, either. You’re always aware of the girth of the car you’re driving, and the stability control system cuts in early if you dare try to forget it, but this is a stable, easy and exceedingly relaxing car to drive.
The BMW, quite obviously, feels more agile. It has only three turns between locks and its engine is even more muted and more responsive. Ditto its gearbox calibration. The Discovery is happy to hang in there in a higher gear, but the BMW is keener to drop and give you the acceleration you asked for.
This X5 comes as standard with adaptive dampers, which have two stages of calibration. They’re largely well judged, too, Comfort offering an approximation of that and Sport offering an effort at the other. In neither mode is the steering — non-linear in response and artificial in feel — particularly satisfying but, generally, the BMW drives like BMWs do.
It rides well enough, grips strongly and is more agile than you’d credit. It’s not an engaging car to drive, but it’s a stable and predictable one.
And if the inside gave you a clue as to which way the Volvo swayed, the way it drives certainly will, too. Yet, if anything, it feels even more agile than the BMW. Partly that’s presumably down to the relatively low weight, but some credit must also go to the way the XC90 is set up.
Like the BMW, it wants three turns between steering locks. But away from a slightly reassuring straight-ahead tendency, it turns in with remarkable sharpness.
Body control is good and the ride firm — too firm, in truth, on this passively suspended model.
Most of the time, it’s acceptable. But there’s an underlying busyness to the ride on all but the smoothest of surfaces. And if you load up the suspension with, say, a cornering or braking force and then apply another input — a pothole or big surface imperfection — the XC90 is the most intrusive of the lot.
All of these cars are excellent and we’re talking small degrees here. If you want some ‘S’ in your SUV, the XC90 does a better job of behaving like a tall car than the BMW. Its engine and gearbox are eager and quieter, too, than the Land Rover’s, albeit making a less pleasing sound.
Which is where I have the problem I came in with. The Volvo has a truly excellent interior and is more interesting to drive. And if you want seven seats, its rear chairs are infinitely preferable to the BMW’s, all of which means the XC90 gets the nod over the X5.
But the XC90 and the Discovery are harder to split, because they are not attempt
ing to do quite the same thing. I prefer the cut of the Discovery’s mature, isolated jib, and it’s the one I’d rather drive.
Right up until, I suspect, where I had to pay some of the running costs — and at that point, the XC90 would seal the narrow vic
tory I’m inclined to award it here.