Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Read All About It
Chris M Wanted a V-10

2017 Volvo XC-60

Unveiling in Geneva on 07 March 2017 starting 9:45am UK time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp6Jbih2nRY
PhilD

Well wasn't that exciting.
Michael

Does have the look of being rear-ended, the nose seeming out of proportion with the rest of it.
BeN

Doesn't look very different...?



PhilD

I like it.
Racing Teatray

Yes, so do I. Volvo's new design language is attractive. Odd though that the cab-back, long bonnet profile should be applied to a car that will never pack more than four cylinders...
Scouse

+1 from me.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

The lower side moulding looks as though it would fit in the recess in the doors!
PhilD

Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote:
The lower side moulding looks as though it would fit in the recess in the doors!


It's like a reflection in a still pool.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

I almost like it, maybe familiarity with the shape will enhance my opinion?
The wheels and wheel arches do look enormous in the first set of photos released.
The long bonnet, whilst a Volvo tradition, must surely compromise cabin space.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news...volvo-xc60-set-take-jaguar-f-pace
Giant

Is that the fuel filler on the front wing?!
Chris M Wanted a V-10

^ No, the charging point for the plug-in/hybrid versions
PG

Giant wrote:
Is that the fuel filler on the front wing?!


I wondered that too. Or a charging point for the hybrid?

Re the long bonnet - is it transverse of longitudinal engined? If transverse, then it is very long indeed.
PhilD

PG wrote:
Giant wrote:
Is that the fuel filler on the front wing?!


I wondered that too. Or a charging point for the hybrid?

Re the long bonnet - is it transverse of longitudinal engined? If transverse, then it is very long indeed.


It's for pedestrian safety. One of these pops out if you hit anyone.


Blarno

It's a modern Volvo, it'll be transverse.
Nelson

that's very handsome, and very desirable and even the new rear lights design actually works well on this (whereas them on the S90 look an abomination and looks like its been sat on). Interior is very smart, it's the first car I can actually say that the touchscreen looks a great piece and easy to use as shows everything in large clear format, though for me it should have separate heating controls.

Like it
Roadsterstu

Racing Teatray wrote:
Yes, so do I. Volvo's new design language is attractive. Odd though that the cab-back, long bonnet profile should be applied to a car that will never pack more than four cylinders...


Yes. A bit BMW like. However, that's where the S/V90 have headed as well.

I do rather like that. It's a nice update of the Volvo design language and, given just how many newish Volvo cars I now see on the roads, they must be doing something right. This bodes well for the next V60. Just a slight shame about the 4 cylinder future. That said, the power outputs are impressive.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

Roadsterstu wrote:
Just a slight shame about the 4 cylinder future. That said, the power outputs are impressive.

It'll be interesting to see if there's a backlash once new emission tests start to show that these downsized turbo engines aren't all that efficient in real-world use.
Roadsterstu

Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote:
Roadsterstu wrote:
Just a slight shame about the 4 cylinder future. That said, the power outputs are impressive.

It'll be interesting to see if there's a backlash once new emission tests start to show that these downsized turbo engines aren't all that efficient in real-world use.


I wonder what percentage of buyers really care about them having less than 5 or 6 cylinders? We do, naturally.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

I remember at Geneva the year they launched the C Class, I was talking one of their sales people along with an owner of a previous model. He was basically saying he wasn't interested unless they came up with a version with a six cylinder engine (he'd had a C350). I told her the same thing.

I think at so-called premium level, people do care about this stuff. Volvo had a real USP with the five, just as BMW did with inline sixes; you abandon that kind of heritage at your peril, because eventually people start to ask why they should buy your car instead of a competitor, and you don't really have an answer other than monthly lease payments (which your rivals will be going all out to match).
Michael

I'd suggest a motor show sample would be disproportionately 'enthusiast' compared to the general public. I'd have the T8 XC90 as it is. The power is there and the technology is interesting which I think is becoming more of a lever for buyers. The mainstream days of beyond four cyclinders are over.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

I've read very mixed reviews of the T8, and I firmly believe that "big engines are over" is propaganda from the people who'd have you believe that diesel engines are clean because their CO2 figures are low.

There was a comment in evo that the 718 they tested had a lifetime mpg under 20 - so we gave up the flat sixes for sub-20 mpg? My GT3 did almost 30 mpg in the UK - the worst I managed was an Autobahn strop at 150 mph or more that burned through a tankful at 19 mpg. The idea that these small overstressed turbo engines are super efficient is a blatant lie.
Giant

The lie being we've foisted 4cyls on you for added efficiency, rather than for reduced costs/additional profit. Doesn't mean the result is different.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote:
..... I firmly believe that "big engines are over" is propaganda from the people who'd have you believe that diesel engines are clean because their CO2 figures are low.

It's all political from scum-bag politicians. Why don't they tackle pollution from ships, for example, or planes whose fuel is still generally tax-free and whose emissions go direct into the upper atmosphere?
Because motorists are easy, soft targets and they love to play around with us, taxing us to the hilt, leaving us down one path then changing their minds and shafting us all when they do so with huge tax hikes.  How can you build long-term stability if, for example, you are making diesel engines since one minute we are encouraged to buy them due to low CO2 emissions, then next minute they are evil (in the eyes of the politicians) due to particulates?
Twelfth Monkey

Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote:
I've read very mixed reviews of the T8, and I firmly believe that "big engines are over" is propaganda from the people who'd have you believe that diesel engines are clean because their CO2 figures are low.

There was a comment in evo that the 718 they tested had a lifetime mpg under 20 - so we gave up the flat sixes for sub-20 mpg? My GT3 did almost 30 mpg in the UK - the worst I managed was an Autobahn strop at 150 mph or more that burned through a tankful at 19 mpg. The idea that these small overstressed turbo engines are super efficient is a blatant lie.


On a longer run, the only distances over which I can comment, the consumption from mine isn't that different from Mrs 12th's 2l 4-pot turbo.
Martin

Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote:
There was a comment in evo that the 718 they tested had a lifetime mpg under 20 - so we gave up the flat sixes for sub-20 mpg? My GT3 did almost 30 mpg in the UK - the worst I managed was an Autobahn strop at 150 mph or more that burned through a tankful at 19 mpg. The idea that these small overstressed turbo engines are super efficient is a blatant lie.


The overal average for the Boxster is 28mpg and it doesn't do many long motorway journeys.  I'm not sure it would be possible to average 20mpg on the road without being a complete idiot and it will easily do mid to high 30s on a gentle run.

Turbos seem to be blamed for relatively poor economy, but it is more about engine size, we've seen some excelllent numbers from long runs in the forums M135is as an example.  Turbocharged engines do seem to have a wider range based on how they're driven, I could get low 30s out of mine if I tried, but thanks to fairly heavy but flowing traffic on the way home last night, it did 50mpg.
Michael

Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote:
I've read very mixed reviews of the T8, and I firmly believe that "big engines are over" is propaganda from the people who'd have you believe that diesel engines are clean because their CO2 figures are low.

There was a comment in evo that the 718 they tested had a lifetime mpg under 20 - so we gave up the flat sixes for sub-20 mpg? My GT3 did almost 30 mpg in the UK - the worst I managed was an Autobahn strop at 150 mph or more that burned through a tankful at 19 mpg. The idea that these small overstressed turbo engines are super efficient is a blatant lie.


I've only read positive reviews of the T8 and my own experience of one was very positive. On longer runs, as described elsewhere, the economy would be dire but around town, as most are used, it's very good.
Economy is only part of it, however. Packaging and production cost are the greater influences here. Rightly or wrongly, the days of mainstream engines with many cylinders are over.
Boxer6

Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:
Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote:
..... I firmly believe that "big engines are over" is propaganda from the people who'd have you believe that diesel engines are clean because their CO2 figures are low.

It's all political from scum-bag politicians. Why don't they tackle pollution from ships, for example, or planes whose fuel is still generally tax-free and whose emissions go direct into the upper atmosphere?
Because motorists are easy, soft targets and they love to play around with us, taxing us to the hilt, leaving us down one path then changing their minds and shafting us all when they do so with huge tax hikes.  How can you build long-term stability if, for example, you are making diesel engines since one minute we are encouraged to buy them due to low CO2 emissions, then next minute they are evil (in the eyes of the politicians) due to particulates?


It's been known and acknowledged for many years about the danger of diesel particulate emissions. What IS galling is the political viewpoint changing and their assurance it's for health/environmental reasons, when it's obvious to a blind man it's all about money. As always.
Tim

I read that the Fiat Coupe was more fuel efficient as a 5 pot than a 4 pot - despite being 35BHP more powerful.
It was also no more efficient than the 3.2 in the Alfa GT.

Marti, I'm amazed you can get much into the 30s with the Boxster - it just shows to me that there is still plenty of 'life' in pursuing increased efficiency with existing engines rather than chasing it with newer, more technical engines that to my mind have more bits that can go wrong in later years.

There's no point in making a car 20% more efficient if its going to get to, say, 10 years old and then get 'thrown away'.
A less efficient car that lasts 15 years will be better.

Wasn't there a report a few years ago that said the Jeep Cherokee was the least polluting car when all emissions including building and transportation were included?
Michael

Tim wrote:
years ago that said the Jeep Cherokee was the least polluting car when all emissions including building and transportation were included?


The Dust to Dust report, it was the Wrangler but there is very little to them.
JohnC

I read somewhere recently that cars only account for 11% of the NOx emissions whereas central heating etc accounts for nearly 40%. Aircraft and ships account for nearly a third and I can't remember what the rest was.

The bottom line is that even if you slash car NOx emissions in half, you have made an inconsequential impact.

Money should be spent to ensure that it is a requirement for all new houses to have at least one aspect of their roof made of solar tiles and possibly heat pumps installed in all new developments. We will have to move towards electric heating in houses and it is surely better to start putting the infrastructure in place now than wait until it is too late.
Tim

JohnC wrote:
I read somewhere recently that cars only account for 11% of the NOx emissions whereas central heating etc accounts for nearly 40%. Aircraft and ships account for nearly a third and I can't remember what the rest was.

The bottom line is that even if you slash car NOx emissions in half, you have made an inconsequential impact.

Money should be spent to ensure that it is a requirement for all new houses to have at least one aspect of their roof made of solar tiles and possibly heat pumps installed in all new developments. We will have to move towards electric heating in houses and it is surely better to start putting the infrastructure in place now than wait until it is too late.


There was something about that on the BBC website at the beginning of the week.

I think the 11% was a London figure - that's where most info is from - but the article still managed to come around to the idea that cars should be taxed more  
Tim

Tax cars a bit more and ignore the major causes of the problem.
Article here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38979754
Bob Sacamano

It's the bleedin' hipsters with their friggin' wood burning stoves I tell you!
PhilD

Bob Sacamano wrote:
It's the bleedin' hipsters with their friggin' wood burning stoves I tell you!


Ever since you mentioned this I can smell these bleeding things everywhere!
Bob Sacamano

PhilD wrote:
Bob Sacamano wrote:
It's the bleedin' hipsters with their friggin' wood burning stoves I tell you!


Ever since you mentioned this I can smell these bleeding things everywhere!


A single wood burning stove emits as much PM2.5 (the really dangerous particles) in a year as a 1000 petrol cars.

http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-1

They are probably the main reason why, despite all attempts to clean up London's air, it's getting worse.
Tim

We had a wood burning stove in one of our houses and it was particularly inefficient, smelly and just a complete pain.
It was only rarely used.
Roadsterstu

JohnC wrote:
I read somewhere recently that cars only account for 11% of the NOx emissions whereas central heating etc accounts for nearly 40%. Aircraft and ships account for nearly a third and I can't remember what the rest was.

The bottom line is that even if you slash car NOx emissions in half, you have made an inconsequential impact.

Money should be spent to ensure that it is a requirement for all new houses to have at least one aspect of their roof made of solar tiles and possibly heat pumps installed in all new developments. We will have to move towards electric heating in houses and it is surely better to start putting the infrastructure in place now than wait until it is too late.


Aircraft, naturally, burn up a lot of fuel but are getting ever more efficient. Shipping, though, produces horrific amounts of pollution.
Twelfth Monkey

Water's nearly 800 times denser than air, and the masses involved are obviously huge.
Scouse

Roadsterstu wrote:
JohnC wrote:
I read somewhere recently that cars only account for 11% of the NOx emissions whereas central heating etc accounts for nearly 40%. Aircraft and ships account for nearly a third and I can't remember what the rest was.

The bottom line is that even if you slash car NOx emissions in half, you have made an inconsequential impact.

Money should be spent to ensure that it is a requirement for all new houses to have at least one aspect of their roof made of solar tiles and possibly heat pumps installed in all new developments. We will have to move towards electric heating in houses and it is surely better to start putting the infrastructure in place now than wait until it is too late.


Aircraft, naturally, burn up a lot of fuel but are getting ever more efficient. Shipping, though, produces horrific amounts of pollution.


Indeed, but at least they used heavy fuel oil for the really big stuff, which meant we used more of each barrel of oil.

       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Read All About It
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum