2010 Volvo XC60: Fear No Lane Change

The little hanger holder?

Is that what that is? I see the hanger holder under the assist handle, but right in front of the assist handle is something that looks like a sideways comma.

I bet there is a hook that you put through the big part of the coma then slide it left so it doesn't pop out interesting overall.

In my day, it took a much bigger window and much smaller d-pillar for visibility to be considered great. Those were the days.

Also why I love our 04 Taurus wagon. Most may scoff at the bubble styling, but the visibility is great, possibly even better than the XC60's.

proper mirror placement = no blind spot

Should try a 91 Legacy wagon. Far better visibility then the Volvo with a much lower beltline and much thinner pillars.

"a lot more easy"

or

"a lot easier"

not "more easier"

Visibility issues with the Outlander? It has great visibility compared to most CUVs. My 08 has almost no blind spots. The B/C pillars hardly block the view, either. I doubt anything changed for 2010.

I've had sedans with better and with worse visability. So far it seems ok on our XC60. I would note that a low slung car could still be hidden in that view, especially if not completely abreast of your car, as the beltline rises towards the rear in the XC60.

The power is indeed impressive and surprisingly so. It produces power with less effort than cars that have similar 0-60 times like the BMW 328i, and with much less racket and fuss than faster cars like the Infiniti G35.

SMOOTH is the best word for this vehicle (for its class). I was surprised at reading comments that the ride was too firm in multiple reviews, as we have the R design with 20's and a firmer suspension setup and it is much smoother and quieter riding than our BMW 3 sport or Infiniti G sedans. At least that is the perception.

Steering could use some work, as you have to make small adjustments in a sweeping turn, unlike a BMW. But nothing's perfect. Also the sport seats are not as soft and accomodating as the standard ones, but the way they grip you does feel better in turns. I'd still prefer the standard ones as most of the time you are not making fast turns!

I believe Volvo has an accessory divider system that uses those holes. Bars fit accross the car. Two sets are there for when you fold the seats down you use the front set and when seats are up you use the rear set. It's to keep pets in place, gear off your head, etc.

@blueguydotcom & ivanz - Agreed. The Outlander has nice, large outside mirrors. Properly adjusted there's no issue with side visibility.

As the owner of 2010 XC60 T6 -- I think rear corner visibility is decent for this type of vehicle, but BLIS is your friend. Although it gives some false positives, it rarely, if ever, misses a car.

I do wish we had the camera for straight on rear visibility, but the park assist is pretty good in this car, albeit a little annoying/sensitive at times. I suppose I prefer it to be overly sensitive than not enough, though...

I wonder how visible a small roadster in the next lane would be.

@carlisimo: That's why I just drive faster than everyone else when I'm in my Miata. Then I'm not sitting in anyone's blind spot.

(joke)

Can we please get a '91 Subaru wagon in the fleet? Apparently, new cars need to live up to old Subarus. I say that jokingly, but this is not the first time firstwagon has stated how his old Subarus are superior in some fashion. And firstwagon, this isn't an attack, just an observation.

I think the visibility, based on this picture is more than adequate. I'm not sure exactly what's going to hide in that spot, along with using the mirrors.

"I say that jokingly, but this is not the first time firstwagon has stated how his old Subarus are superior in some fashion"

For almost every car I've ever owned I can list some feature that was superiour is some way. The Legacy was an impressive car though and beats a lot of new cars in certain ways (visiblility being a big one).

(It also caused me less trouble at 19 years old then most of the long term fleet do at less then one year).

Have you never owned a car in the past that was better then new models in some way?

Prior to the recent NHTSA revisions to the current safety standard, rollover protection in the U.S. was seriously lacking. Roof crush was weak, head protection practically non-existent save for impact-absorbing trim, and even side impact protection was relatively bad. The roof pillars have to bear so much force in different types of crashes and UHSS is so expensive that thick pillars will be a downside. The '91 Legacy example would fail badly against today's standards. I think the upside of vastly better crash protection outweighs the visibility trade-off to an extent. And yes, I'm well-aware of the "if we could see out we wouldn't crash as much" argument. Much of that of course is simply due to trendy vehicle styling cues like high beltlines and sloping roofs, not crash protection.

I've seen Legacys of that vintage that have rolled at the junkyard and the roof pillars do not crush.

Thicker pillars are more for style then safety. The D pillar is a perfect example, it bears little of the load in a roll over and yet is massive on most cars.

"I've seen Legacys of that vintage that have rolled at the junkyard and the roof pillars do not crush."

It certainly met the standard of the day, which was 1.5x the unloaded weight of the vehicle as measured on the driver's side. The new standard is now 3x the vehicle's weight and the test is run on both sides of the roof, with no deflection contact with the seated dummies allowed at all. 1.5x has been the standard since the early 1970's and a light rollover will not crush the roof. A heavy roll with the 1.5 standard would still allow significant deflection at the windshield header.

With the enhanced side-impact requirements (NHTSA is also now requiring the side pole test), A- and B- pillars and roof rails will no doubt be beefed up. You are correct that C- and D- pillars bear less of the load in a rollover or side crash, so much of the reduced rear visibility in modern cars is due to rising beltlines and sloping roofs.