XC90 V8 to move to other P2 platform cars?

[skip0110]

The Volvo XC90 V8 was recently made availble. It's tranvsely mounted, twin cam, Yamaha built 4.4 liter engine puts out 300 hp. The engine is a evolution of the old Yamaha V8 found in the SHO Taurus.

Ward's auto world reports that it is likey that this engine will spread to other Volvo products based on the P2 architecture, which include the S80, XC70, and S60. (Possible as R-models.)

Link
http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_volvos_reach_beyond/index.htm

What do you think of this engine, and what do you think of displacement replacing boost as Volvo's way of making power? Also, since the Five Hundered is also a P2 platform car, do you think we will see a Five Hundered SHO? I think this is rather likely, the Five Hundered being quite underpopwered with it's current 203 hp V6.

 

[skip0110]

No comments? How about this: If the 4.4 Yamaha V8 makes it into the Five Hundred, how do you think it will compare with the new Dodge Charger?

Say Hemi AWD Charger vs. a hypothetical 4.4 V8 AWD 500 sedan.

 

[1X83Z]

Ford claims it's trying to do away with SVT, meaning they're going for more broadly appealing performance (Focus ST) rather than light-appeal performance (Lightning, and the other superpowered SVT models), like a 300-horsepower Five Hundred would have. And of course, if they did do a V8 Five Hundred, it wouldn't show up until 2006, because the Five Hundred V6 would have to build brand presence in order for a V8 version to truly be cool. Clearly this is the right move for Volvo because I see the XC90 as the closest status-conscious competitor to the BMW X5, though I don't see people making the connection between "XC90" and "V8", though that has less to do with "XC90" and more to do with "Volvo". So I don't think the XC90 V8 will be significantly popular, like the X5 4.4i. And I'd bet there won't be an XC90R, unlike BMW who has, for all intents and purposes, released an X5M in the form of the 4.8is.

Nevertheless! Ford's all about sharing stuff these days, be it platforms or engines, and until now Volvo's refused to play ball. Obviously this is the same engine inside the Land Rover LR3, and if Ford does make a high-performance Five Hundred, this will be the engine. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see several other applications rather soon, even on vehicles you might not expect (after all, who expected a V8 Volvo?) though it seems like more of an SUV engine than anything else, and Ford seems to have that squared away. It would do VERY well in the Explorer, whose V8 has 36 less horsepower than GM's straight six, though the Explorer's V8 should have 302 horsepower like it does in the Lincoln Aviator, so there's really no need to drop a whole new engine in when they could just tune it to the Aviator's standards and make it competitive again. The Ford Expedition is newly without a base engine (a very odd move), with the 239-horsepower 4.6 from the Explorer cancelled at the start of the year and while the size figure is just right to replace it, the power figure of the 4.4 is too high since a "base" engine is required, with about 260 horsepower.

I'm not quite sure Volvo is replacing boost. Obviously they aren't going to steal Ford's stuff for everything. Boost is very necessary in capturing young buyers in the S40 and V50, and even the S60, though I wouldn't be surprised if the NEXT S80 (four months?) does have a V8, because it needs either a V8 (E-class, 5-series, S-Type, A6) or a lot of innovation (Acura RL) to compete in that class. And I don't think Volvo, under Ford's stewardship, is in a position to be particularly innovative now - or in the near future. And the V8's right there.

Speaking of the S80, I'd bet a nice T6 that there'll be a V90 before long. And maybe even an S80R making good use of that V8, though it remains to be seen how they want to play the V8; if they make an S80 V8 as a normal model, which they should to broaden appeal, they'll be without an engine for the S80R, which would suck because performance buyers like that segment. But if they put the V8 in the S80R only, the V8 doesn't see enough buyers since the S80R would be limited like the S60R. Tough call.

 

[skip0110]

Nevertheless! Ford's all about sharing stuff these days, be it platforms or engines, and until now Volvo's refused to play ball. Obviously this is the same engine inside the Land Rover LR3, and if Ford does make a high-performance Five Hundred, this will be the engine. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see several other applications rather soon, even on vehicles you might not expect (after all, who expected a V8 Volvo?) though it seems like more of an SUV engine than anything else, and Ford seems to have that squared away. It would do VERY well in the Explorer, whose V8 has 36 less horsepower than GM's straight six, though the Explorer's V8 should have 302 horsepower like it does in the Lincoln Aviator, so there's really no need to drop a whole new engine in when they could just tune it to the Aviator's standards and make it competitive again. The Ford Expedition is newly without a base engine (a very odd move), with the 239-horsepower 4.6 from the Explorer cancelled at the start of the year and while the size figure is just right to replace it, the power figure of the 4.4 is too high since a "base" engine is required, with about 260 horsepower.

Really? I didnt think so. The 4.4 L LR3 engine, as far as I know, is derived from the 4.2 Jaguar V8, which traces it's roots to the plain-Jane Ford modular V8 you see in Explorers, etc. It mounts longitudinally as far as I know. So the LR3 engine would make a viable engine in Explorers or Avaitors, since it most likely matches thier transmission bellhousing pattern more or less.

The 4.4 L XC90 engine is completely different though. It traces its roots to the transverse V8 that was seen in the SHO Taruses. (The XC90 is closely related to the cars in Volvo's lineup, and needs a transverse engine.) So while the LR3 engine would make a good truck engine, I don't think the it would ever make it's way into Ford group passenger cars, and vice versa for the XC90 engine. But the XC90 V8 might show up in the Freestyle, essentially a Five Hundred on stilts. I think that the Freestyle (at the very least) needs a V8 NOW to be a viable competitor, the weak V6 is not going to cut it, even with the CVT.

Speaking of the S80, I'd bet a nice T6 that there'll be a V90 before long. And maybe even an S80R making good use of that V8, though it remains to be seen how they want to play the V8; if they make an S80 V8 as a normal model, which they should to broaden appeal, they'll be without an engine for the S80R, which would suck because performance buyers like that segment. But if they put the V8 in the S80R only, the V8 doesn't see enough buyers since the S80R would be limited like the S60R. Tough call.

There might be a V90, but I doubt that it'll make it to the States. We don't like wagons, you know. And the V8 will be availible in the non-R S80 I would expect, because in the premium segment buyers often want V8 power without uncumfortable sport suspension settings.

 

[1X83Z]

Really? I didnt think so. The 4.4 L LR3 engine, as far as I know, is derived from the 4.2 Jaguar V8, which traces it's roots to the plain-Jane Ford modular V8 you see in Explorers, etc. It mounts longitudinally as far as I know. So the LR3 engine would make a viable engine in Explorers or Avaitors, since it most likely matches thier transmission bellhousing pattern more or less.

So here's what you're telling me.

4.4 liter engines used by Ford
1. Range Rover: 282hp 4.4 V8, from BMW
2. Land Rover LR3: 300hp 4.4 V8, from Jaguar/Ford
3. Volvo XC90: 4.4 V8, from Yamaha

4.4 liter engines used by all other manufacturers
None

Absurd! But yeah, they're different. The LR3's engine is derived from in-house powertrains.

But the XC90 V8 might show up in the Freestyle, essentially a Five Hundred on stilts.

If the Freestyle is a Five Hundred on stilts, the Mitsubishi Endeavor is a Galant on stilts.

I think that the Freestyle (at the very least) needs a V8 NOW to be a viable competitor, the weak V6 is not going to cut it, even with the CVT.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're looking at this wrong.

Ford Freestyle = Subaru Outback, Toyota Highlander, Volvo V70, Volkswagen Passat.

NOT!!!

Ford Freestyle = Chevrolet Trailblazer, Toyota 4Runner, Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Ford already has a competitor for the Trailblazer, 4Runner, and Grand Cherokee; the Freestyle aims at cars and car-like SUVs. Look at it that way and it's considerably more sensible, I promise.

There might be a V90, but I doubt that it'll make it to the States. We don't like wagons, you know.

Says who? The wagon is back, I promise. The AWD wagon is finally getting true share, like it should've been getting from the beginnng when the Outback took off. People are finally taking it seriously, and one of the leaders of the comeback is Volvo's own V70. If there's a V90, we'll get it, to compete with the Audi Allroad. Volvo hasn't held off a product before, and it won't start now.

And the V8 will be availible in the non-R S80 I would expect, because in the premium segment buyers often want V8 power without uncumfortable sport suspension settings.

Four-C owns! I wish I had an S60R... I'd "advanced" it all the time and tell my passengers to shut the **** up or hold the **** on.

 

[skip0110]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're looking at this wrong.

Ford Freestyle = Subaru Outback, Toyota Highlander, Volvo V70, Volkswagen Passat.

NOT!!!

Ford Freestyle = Chevrolet Trailblazer, Toyota 4Runner, Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Ford already has a competitor for the Trailblazer, 4Runner, and Grand Cherokee; the Freestyle aims at cars and car-like SUVs. Look at it that way and it's considerably more sensible, I promise.

OK, it looks slightly more sensible, but the Freestyle is still bringing up the back of the pack, by almost a second:

Car - 0 to 60 time
Ford Freestyle - 8.9-9.2 sec
Subaru Outback 2.5 XT - 7.1 sec
Toyota Highlander - 8.1 sec
Volvo V70 - 6.7-8.2 sec
Volkswagen Passat (1.8T ?) - 7.5 sec
​

And it's pulling off those times with a fancy CVT. But with gas prices the way they are, maybe people will not mind? Somehow I think for Americans more power will almost always equate more sales. That CVT is going to be keeping that V6 at high revs during a lot of highway passing and merging.

Says who? The wagon is back, I promise. The AWD wagon is finally getting true share, like it should've been getting from the beginnng when the Outback took off. People are finally taking it seriously, and one of the leaders of the comeback is Volvo's own V70. If there's a V90, we'll get it, to compete with the Audi Allroad. Volvo hasn't held off a product before, and it won't start now.

If anyone has the right market positioning in the US to sell wagons, it is Volvo. But at the S80's price point, poeple don't want a name like Volvo--they want one with more cachet, like Audi or, even more so, Cadillac (think Escalade). A V90 would sell, but it's sales would be even the slimmer than those of the S80, which are pretty darn slim to begin with. I walk around Boston every single day; I see hardly any S80s.

Four-C owns! I wish I had an S60R... I'd "advanced" it all the time and tell my passengers to shut the **** up or hold the **** on.

 

[1X83Z]

OK, it looks slightly more sensible, but the Freestyle is still bringing up the back of the pack, by almost a second:

Car - 0 to 60 time
Ford Freestyle - 8.9-9.2 sec
Subaru Outback 2.5 XT - 7.1 sec
Toyota Highlander - 8.1 sec
Volvo V70 - 6.7-8.2 sec
Volkswagen Passat (1.8T ?) - 7.5 sec
​

And it's pulling off those times with a fancy CVT. But with gas prices the way they are, maybe people will not mind? Somehow I think for Americans more power will almost always equate more sales. That CVT is going to be keeping that V6 at high revs during a lot of highway passing and merging.

Meh. Seems to me wagon buyers care a lot more about a lot of other things where the Freestyle is poised to hit the ground running (cargo room, stuff, price, power, style, versatility inside and out). I've driven a Freestyle Limited AWD and was very impressed. I've driven two Five Hundreds and was left unimpressed, particularly by an SE with few options that somehow managed to escape Hertz; it's a pretty boring car on the outside and the interior is only "decent", not much altered by the Limited and SEL models which have more stuff but still have an air-con-vent-sized gap in the center (where another air-con vent ought to be - duh?). It's an easy market to compete in but a difficult one to break into, so don't expect the Five Hundred to kick ass its first few years. Which is why a performance variant would help it.

If anyone has the right market positioning in the US to sell wagons, it is Volvo. But at the S80's price point, poeple don't want a name like Volvo--they want one with more cachet, like Audi or, even more so, Cadillac (think Escalade). A V90 would sell, but it's sales would be even the slimmer than those of the S80, which are pretty darn slim to begin with. I walk around Boston every single day; I see hardly any S80s.

Luxury wagon sales are taking off! Audi's giving us a low-volume A8 wagon, and Jaguar will rue the day they didn't bring the X-Type wagon to the US. Rue! Incidentally, I think you overestimate the S80's price point. It starts at $35500 and doesn't usually top $50000, that's easily wagon territory for a company like Volvo. Remember: keep it low volume and bring in profits. New model means a wagon, I promise.

We're thinking about an S60R to replace my wife's "car", but we're actually going to get a C320 4Matic, I just tell people we're thinking about an S60R so I can drive one. Particularly one with orange leather.