As straight-six engines go, Volvo's turbocharged 3.0-liter doesn't get much respect. This despite nearly matching the output numbers of the world's most famous force-fed six, the BMW 3.0-liter.
I suppose there are reasons why. The Volvo's wheezy exhaust note is one issue. I suppose the fact that it's mounted sideways doesn't help its street cred either.
These things aside, however, the Volvo's engine isn't bad at all. It moves the XC60 quickly off the line and it's no lightweight. The power delivery is smooth too. A little bit of a peak is detectable, but nothing that makes it feel ill-suited to an SUV. Maybe it needs better marketing.
Ed Hellwig, Editor, Inside Line @ 20,472 miles
rmelvin says:
08:07 PM, 07/20/10
volvos are just great cars, they do everything you want it to do, they arent the best or fastest thing out there. But its like your favorite golden retriever that is loyal and always there
roadburner says:
08:27 PM, 07/20/10
I'll take an I6 over a V6 every time. As a matter of fact, the only V engines I have are powering my two ZTR mowers.
tmanz says:
09:14 PM, 07/20/10
straight sixes rule!
Sidways mounted not quite as much though.
blueguydotcom says:
09:20 PM, 07/20/10
Maybe it's ignored because Volvo is one of the worst brands still in business? Just a thought...
Like NA inline 6s (and will miss them on BMWs when they finally kill them off in favor of their boring turbos) but Volvo as a brand makes Mopar seem almost decent. We actually had parts pop off ours. Just sitting still. Boing! There goes a headlight. Twang! Did the antenna just fall off? Snap? What, the hell, a button came off after I pressed it. Horrid, horrid cars.
slickersdrip says:
10:14 PM, 07/20/10
blueguy,
What Volvos have you had? My family has had Volvos since the 1960's (including a P1800) through my uncle's 2004 V70R and they've been nothing but a joy to own...
blueguydotcom says:
01:06 AM, 07/21/10
S80. So bad it's made our VW/Audi products seem decent. And it's made our BMWs seem like perfect cars.
zoomzoomn says:
05:57 AM, 07/21/10
Better marketing is not an issue so much as ANY marketing! Volvos in general aren't bad cars. One of a few problems is that people don't know what current Volvos are about. It's not just the old safety thing anymore. Maybe it's like Saab, they simply no longer enjoy the niche they once had.
lowmilelude says:
06:47 AM, 07/21/10
I certainly haven't forgotten the straight six. There's a 4.0 in my TJ that can idle up a wall!
gsarngad says:
06:55 AM, 07/21/10
My sister has been driving Volvos for the past 12 years or so, first an 850 then an XC90 T-6, and they've been a mixed bag. The electrical system seems to have been pretty horrible on both of them, but they run OK. The only reason they got rid of the 850 is that somebody came around the 25 mph corner outside their neighborhood much much faster than that and totaled it.
I'm partial to 5-cylinders myself. My first car in high school was my dad's old 82 300D turbo. That car had 290,000 miles on it when I left for college and my parents sold it, but it still ran great. As I understand, the guy who bought it is still driving it now.
06scooby says:
07:03 AM, 07/21/10
Yeah my wife had a 02 S60 with the I5 when we started dating. It was a decent car even though the motor sounded like a sewing machine. It was a weird car for her as she is kind of a country girl. Her grandpa found it for her when her 89 GMC Sierra died if that tells you anything.
Car was decent but a little cheap feeling on the inside. Even though it was the base I5 it didn't feel underpowered (the 5 speed auto probably helped) When the transmission started slipping at 79,000 miles because it had the wrong fluid in it (apparently someone who didn't know what they were doing serviced it before she bought it) and we found out nobody would rebuild it, but instead it was 5k for a brand new one, it went bye bye! the funny thing is that we traded it for another I5... a 2005 GMC Canyon Ext Cab. She really wanted another truck but with decent gas mileage and a manual tranny... go figure. That truck didn't last long with us though... I'm just not a fan of I5's after owning 2 of them.
sherief says:
08:34 AM, 07/21/10
The Inline-5 in a GMC truck's got nothing on Volvo, Mercedes and (especially) Audi I-5's.
chochmastergen says:
08:59 AM, 07/21/10
Volvo really started to go downhill after Ford bought them. Kind of killed the company pride that they had in building safe reliable cars before that. Ugly as sin, but ran like champs. Volvo's today are just ugly.
zcalvert says:
09:20 AM, 07/21/10
I used to have a 93 Isuzu Trooper that had a 3.2L I-6... think it made 175hp. It was unbelievably smooth, sounded good, and revved happily to about 6500rpm.
Of course it was hopelessly underpowered for the weight of the SUV, but it was a fantastic engine... probably would have been great if retuned slightly and put in a sedan.
old_volvo says:
09:25 AM, 07/21/10
I liked Volvo's I5 better. Specially the odd looks I get when I go to the store and buy 5 spark plugs.
Volvo's redblock was even more fun!
drunkenpanda says:
10:11 AM, 07/21/10
So what's the advantage of a straight 6 versus a v6 or a h6
zcalvert says:
10:27 AM, 07/21/10
@drunkenpanda - inherently balanced design.
shadrach2 says:
10:27 AM, 07/21/10
@blueguydotcom - A '99 S80?
oachalon says:
10:57 AM, 07/21/10
The 4.2L I6 atlas engines in the trailblazers and envoys were good motors to. Very smooth, quiet, and made good power. it is ashame they killed that motor. With some DI and a little bit of tweaks you could probably easily make 400hp with it.
06scooby says:
11:38 AM, 07/21/10
sherief: The GMC definitely had a "gruffness" to it that the volvo didn't, especially considering the GMC's was over a full liter bigger than the 2.4 in the volvo. With DOHC and Variable Valve Timing, the GMC motor was actually pretty smooth and made good power for its size didn't mind revving, it was just too peaky and was a horrible match for the truck. Having the manual in it made a huge difference. The engine would have probably been much better in the last gen malibu or something. The volvo I5 didn't seem impressive on paper with only 168hp from 2.4l but it never felt underpowered. The mild turbo they offered would have been nice though...
ptcdawg says:
12:48 PM, 07/21/10
You can't beat a straight 6...the one in my SC300 is thankfully bolted to a 5 Speed Manual Transmission. Sweetness personified.
roadburner says:
06:49 PM, 07/21/10
"There's a 4.0 in my TJ that can idle up a wall!"
Yep, that's one of several reasons that I would NEVER trade my TJ for a JK(at least the initials are appropriate).