Mike__S

First, I am not anti-Mercedes, nor pro Volvo. But, I have just realized there is a unexpected competitor to the E300 based on my recent experience. I'd like to hear other opinions.

We have owned two Audi and four Mercedes over time. We need to get a new car sometime this next year, going from two cars to one at the same time. Now fully retired and in our mid-60's, we're thinking the Driver Assist is essential as we age further. Obviously the Mercedes E300 is ahead of Audi A6 in this area. BMW is not in the hunt for several reasons. We would prefer Diesel fuel economy, but this seems not possible at the moment. The Jaguar XF 20d as expensive as the E300 with options. The interior quality and Driver Assist package are not that anywhere near as good. We do not need lots of power nor sports car handling, I have had my fill of track days.

So we were set on an E300, but were having a hard time swallowing the 12K P3 package just to get a complete Driver Assist. Now all of a sudden there is the new Volvo S90. It seems an extraordinary value compared to the E300.

We drove and examined the S90 yesterday on a lark. My wife and I were both very surprised! We are looking for a comfortable, safe, long distance cruising car. Has anyone else looked at the S90 Inscription, which includes a fully functional Driver Assist package in its $50.646 base price? It is missing the 'active' lane change and a couple other bells and whistles, but not missing any essential safety features. It is certainly on the same level as MB in its Driver Assist basic function.

The S90 has a quiet and refined ride. Great leather seats. Interior fit, finish, and materials every bit as impressive as the E300, just different. The iPad like touch screen is easily understood. A digital instrument screen is standard. Rear seats have good room. It was my impression that entrance and exit are slightly easier than the E300. With two added packages containing automatic parking and reverse motion detection driver assist features, plus the adaptive air suspension, the price is $54,795. This is literally 10k less expensive than the comparably equipped E300 w/P3, lux, acoustic.

We are much temped to order the B&W speaker kit for $2600, where as the Burmeister $5400 package on the E300 is nonsense. The B&W setup is distortion free on the mid to high end, and etches transient response of bass lines with remarkable clarity. Very rare audio quality for a car. We have excellent Danish made Audiovector speakers in our living room and the B&W setup in the S90 compares favorably. It may be a subjective call, but the Burmester is not as tight on the bass lines,. The only plus for the Burmeister is the "concert" mode ambiance is semi-adjustable.

I noted that the Volvo air suspension is sourced from Tenaco/Monroe, the same setup as the E300 Air Body Control, with the added benefit of Swedish based Öhlins staff to help tune the Volvo version There are heat and sound resistant laminated glass windows, same source as the E300 Acoustic Comfort Package. We are literally talking like for like features in many areas.

The S90 may not have the cachet of an E300, but does have solid engineering and equally distinctive style that are by no means second class. We are now hard pressed to justify spending $10k more for the Benz, even though we can afford it.

I was curious if anyone else has taken a close look at the S90 and what their impression compared to the E300 had been. I wonder what we are missing, besides the $10,000?

75gasgas

Thank you and nice write up. The looks of the S90 have caught my as well and is on my list to drive. On a whim, I stopped my the local Volvo dealer just to take a quick look. I too was impressed with what I saw and very impressed with what I saw on the sticker. The aesthetics both inside and out are very pleasing. The new E interior may be the best I have ever seen but, the exterior I am not in love with yet. Maybe with an AMG package it will appeal more to me but, not so much in its current form. The lines work on the S class but, side by side the new E is just not there yet. One thing I noticed right away on the Volvo were the brake rotors and calipers. They looked minuscule next to the new E class. Honestly, I thought it was a joke. Now I will never need to stop from 150mph on the Audubon, I doubt I could even tell a difference on my daily commute. But, in some strange way that one glance at a singular component somehow summed up what I was looking at with the new S90. Volvo has hit a home run with styling and sticker price but, the bank vault like bones of Mercedes will be hard to beat.

evanblack00

I have tested S90 Inscription (Diesel) and Mercedes E220D a week ago in the same day. Even S90 had air suspension, Mercedes was more comfortable for me. Other than that, S90 is really solid car, I like the screen, everything was great. I just don't like Volvo's cockpit design, personally. Both are good cars, but Volvo is one step ahead with that price.

P.S: I am still getting Mercedes.

mjsbenz

My friend / neighbor just leased a S90. I have been in it one time. I think the rear looks ugly and it is not in the same class as a E300. I do not think the two compete in the same market. I bet they will draw from the Acura or Lexus E350 crowd. Price is excellent. Looks are not.

Lanzz

I loved the S90 when I sat in it - really loved it. The interior, although a different style than the Benz, is really clean and contemporary. Two things kept me from moving ahead with it - the least residual is (or was) a few points lower than the E300 - which wipes out some of the sticker price advantage. And, I could not get past the styling of the rear of the car - to my eye, it is nowhere near as attractive as the rest of the vehicle.

c4004matic

I haven't driven the S90, But I have the interior and exterior pics. IMO they are not even in the same planet. The Volvo exterior is fugly. The interior they are not in the same galaxy! The central touch controller in the S90 (a la Tesla) is an eyesore it's as if a buzzard took a crap from the air and in fell in the middle of the dash. The rest of the interior seems as if they pulled it out of an Ikea catalog.
Before I bought my C400 I tested an S60 T6R, it was actually very nice drive indeed, however, the interior was clautrophibic, the fit and finish was awful and the tech was meh, the C class was pretty much better in every way.
I also drove a Lexus GS which was horrible in every way, basicly a bloated Camry with cushy seats and flyboy instruments ; weak whiny engine, horrible handling and a "tacked on" AWD system that took one quarter of the passenger's footwell. Even the drivers footwell was a disaster, the left foot was actually in its own space because there was some reinforcement element in between, most definitely a nightmare.

joshg1001

If the S90 is anything like the XC90, it is a great vehicle. I understand the interior is practically the same and Volvo has made great leaps here just as MB has. The exterior of the S90 doesn't seem as classic and elegant to me as the E, and like someone else mentioned, I dislike the rear end styling. Front end and side profile are decent.

I also dislike the starter rotary knob on the new volvos, seems gimmicky and made of flimsy plastic. Value for money, there is no competition, but you pay a lot for the MB cachet. I dont really think you can go wrong here

ADD0514

Mike,
At this price level, there are substances and values that are not very obvious if we compare the vehicles based on feature counts alone. IMO, a shorter test drive will NOT be sufficient for you to recognize the true characters of each car and to decide which set of compromise is acceptable to you. Here are a few examples.
- Comfort: The Volvo's seat is unbeatable for road trips. This is a concurred opinion among my family members based on the Volvo XC90, MB GL450/E400/E300, and other vehicles we have in the stable.
- Light: The E300 LED light's brightness, projection, and clarity is unequaled. Period.
- Safety: MB's features such as PRE-SAFE Sound, PRE-SAFE Impulse Side, Crosswind Assist, adaptive braking (caliper priming and disc warming) are not available in the Volvo. This is a major selling point for me.
- User Interface: For navigation and entertainment input, Volvo wins hands down. The E300 has 3 input places for the COMAND system! Some of the members here regard the system as difficult and dangerous to use. Make sure that you use both systems ( speak voice commands, enter addresses, listen to the radio or media files, use the touch screen, etc...) WHILE performing the test drive.
- Little things: My other car recognizes the key fob as I approach the car. It automatically turns the exterior lights on and adjust the seat to the preferred position associated with the key fob. None of that happens with the E300. After unlocking the door, I have to press the seat memory button and wait outside until the seat adjustment finishes. Loud and chattering windshield wipers. Continuing issues with MBme, MB App, and on board cellular connection.
- Air Ride: Only the rear end rides on the air struts in the Volvo.

Again, each car brings a different set of priorities and features to the table. In both cases, a limited (1 to 2 hours) test drive will not give you adequate data to make an informed decision about which car is the better fit for you. Read up the warts in both forum then make the decision. The added safety in the E300 is easily worth the $10K premium and sealed the deal for me, just my 2 cents.

Hope this helps.

ngerstman

I think Mike is making some great points on the value proposition of the Volvo versus the Mercedes. I would agree with the general sentiment that the design of the rear end of the car is the weak link of the Volvo but I find the design otherwise very attractive. I wouldn't at all agree with the seriously uncalled for derogatory comments about the S90 interior, I find it modern, functional and uncluttered. I drove a rented loaded xc90 a few months ago and liked the interior and its functionality and the seat comfort was exceptional, better than most any Mercedes seat. The turbo/compressed engine was amazing for a 4 as well, would imagine in the smaller sedan that much better. It puts out over 300hp which kicks the e300 performance ***. It has a nice 8 speed transmission. Good for Volvo, nice product, nice price. Mercedes is no doubt reaming their customers on pricing, the base e300 should be cheaper as well as the e43. I bought a loaded 2011 e550 with an msrp of $68,000 and now would need to pay over $80,000 for a 6 cylinder e43. The price went up for the 4 cylinder e300 when it should have gone down versus the 6 cylinder e350. The customer shouldn't be paying for Mercedes to retool for a new model, it's what they need to do to keep current and keep their customers. They are fortunate that they are one step ahead of the competition in the upgrade cycle right now so they have the pricing power, but I won't forget, pisses me off. Regards. Ned.

Mike__S

GasGas, does Bultaco Alpina ring a bell or a 1994 WRX RA??? Had those.

Brakes are a funny business. I think you are referring to the calipers and not the rotor size. S90 in the States are on 19's with 20's as option, so the rotors will look smaller because the wheels are larger in diameter, but rotors are not small at all. Volvo does have 17, 18, and 19 inch wheel rotor sizes. The small diesel S90's on 17 inch wheels have smaller rotors than the T5 or T6 in the States that are on 19. The 20 series brakes are only on some XC90 models as far as I know.

The E300 in lux trim has standard, inside piston calipers like everyone else. Order "Sport" trim and you get four piston opposed calipers. There was a time not very long ago when pad knock back was a huge problem in spirited driving though corners. Opposed pistons float on the rotor, giving good high brake pedal at all times. So, any car with pretentious of performance got four piston or six piston calipers. Even Subaru WRX STI clear back in 1996.

Minuscule hub flex amounts allow regular production fitted single side allows the pads to push away from the rotor and you can find the brakes half way to the floor after a series of spirited, high G corners. Second stab will be back at the top. Today, with electronic motion sensors, these knock back prone designs have a master cylinder that will keep the pedal at the top. So this biggest single complaint about standard calipers is rapidly disappearing.

A second factor is caliper rigidity, and here again, FEA and CAD simulations have given the industry much stiffer, stronger designs in all areas, including traditional single side piston calipers. I would not lose any sleep over Volvo brake performance.

Unless racing at 9/10ths, conventional style calipers are just fine. In fact, tires (summer with ~220 or less tread rating), suspension geometry and careful selection and design of suspension bushings are what sets braking distance records in a road car. The brakes are just there to get rid of the heat, as it were.

But, there is a problem for luxury cars that hard, stiff bushings make noise. So, a very careful balance in design is required. If you are serious about stopping, then summer performance tires make the biggest difference. Racing pads are a no,no as they never get hot enough to work, giving scary huge braking distances when cold. On the street this is almost all the time, so we want a good ceramic pad of excellent heat range, but nothing like a race car pad.

Since you have a WRX, did you know there is a 25 piece Group N bushing set of high durometer rubber for GC and GD series? Biggest single improvement to braking stability, however they have very poor NVH, causing the chassis to literally moan under the stress of hard braking on racing tires. But, stopping distance and stability are stunning. Overall steering precision and stability are noticeably improved as well. So, bushing design is a critical area for how a car feels and how it performs, much more so that caliper design or rotor size. Again, these two parts are mostly heat cycle related performance.

My point is looks can be deceiving. It is important to understand first principles, then examine a particular design as it relates to the design principles involved.

Mike__S

I think I'll try to get extended rides in both cars, as far as I am concerned, a lot of money is on the line and we intend to keep what ever we get for 8-10 years.

On Air Ride only being fitted to rear. I have read several negative comments (yours is thankfully neutral) that should be shot down. Plus, I believe two versions, all air and rear air are available in some markets, not sure on this yet though. Anyway....

Rear shock dynamics and spring rates control the pitch motion and general ride impression in their reaction to what ever the fronts are experiencing. And, the static load on the front is going to remain almost constant, while the rear static load is subject to high variability. Air springs are a huge advantage in the rear and a questionable design advantage in front. Going front and rear all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. The key advantage to the S90 rear air suspension option is front and rear dynamic shock valving.

Sensors, little levers and sensor pots attached to each strut from the chassis measure compression velocity and instantaneously adjust the resulting rebound motion. Mercedes and Volvo systems are from the same supplier, tuned by Mercedes or Volvo/Öhlins engineers.

There is an old saw, "cars sit on their springs and drive on their shock"s. Compression rates control how sporty or smooth the chassis feels while rebound is chassis and spring rate dependent. Then, there is the issue of piston acceleration, which is the variable associated with the energy levels of the various motions over the road surface. How all that is put together by test engineers is as much art as it is science.

Adjusting front to rear compression rates and rebound rates also control how the chassis feels getting into and out of corners. So to make a long story short, there is a great advantage to real time shock valving control. This is what you are really paying for in either the Volvo or Mercedes air suspension setup.

Mike__S

One thing that has made four cylinder two liter engines popular is their small size and weight. Over the past twenty years, horsepower per liter has risen dramatically, to the point that a two liter engine has the power of a three liter.

What has not changed is the biggest single factor in fuel economy and emissions is engine displacement dependent. Less displacement, less fuel is burned and significantly less emissions occur. at nominal power outputs and at idle.

This is the handwriting on the wall for regulators and the informed public combined. I recognized this trend and have no problem with it. I have driven two liter turbo motors since 1988 for my personal transportation. All FIA AWD rally car qualifiers. These engines easily put out 240-300hp in cars weighing 2700-3000 pounds. I am not surprised to see them fitted into 3500-4000 pound sedans today in place of three liter six engines, After all they have similar power to six cylinder engines of 10 and 15 years ago.

It is not really shocking or even news for that matter.

ADD0514

Absolutely! I drove the XC90 and the E300 for a solid week before getting to the point of truly appreciating the little touches (or lack of) that define the car.

I believe using all air springs allow MB to dynamically control the ride height of the entire car in addition to body motion, particularly at higher speed. The lowered position translate into a lower center of gravity and better mileage.

c4004matic

Mmmmm, let me think, No. Your assumptions on air suspension are all precisely wrong. An air suspesion on the rear serves basicly one function, levelling the car. That is at best crude compared to airmatic or a magnetorheologic suspension. Airmatic can vary the stiffness and rebound on any corner of the car individually and instantaneously this aids to prevent squat, dive,and body roll in a way that a rear only system can only dream about. Not to mention that ride quality is immensly affected by front suspension travel and stiffness. In fact some magnetic shock vehicles only use the shocks in the front since unlike air suspensions they can only dampen they cannot vary the height of the vehicle. The volvo rear only air suspension is nowhere close to airmatic in sophistication nor function, its more akin to a truck with airbags in the rear.

Mike__S

I apologize for the length of this post before hand, but it sets the record straight and clears up some rather egregious commentary in a way that I hope benefits everyone who has interest in automotive technology. Otherwise, maybe skip it! You have been warned.

Off the shelf Tenneco/Monroe CVSA (Continuously Variable Semi-Active) dampers are optionally used on both the E Class and the S90. They are dual valve, which means they have CVSA working on both compression and rebound. I did not really want to give a tutorial on suspension design and tuning tonight, but it would seem some more details are necessary to avoid further confusion.

And, for better or worse, be aware this is only the 5¢ tour. I will not discuss Magnetic Ride (which my brother-in-law helped develop) other than to say Magnetic Ride dampers that "have no springs" do have hydraulic rams inside them in place of springs. I will not define terms such as compression and rebound etc. Nor will I discuss the S class "Magic" suspension, which is hydraulic based, other than to note 'c4004' seems to have confused the hydraulic aspects of "Magic" with the properties of airbags, to his peril.

"Airmatic" is just a trade mark, not a special technology. Let me repeat that cars sit on their springs (or airbags) and drive on their shocks. Without getting this basic tenet of suspension tuning straight, nothing sensible will follow, brand chauvinism notwithstanding.

Firstly, I did not say ride quality was unaffected by front springs and damper settings. If anyone feels this was implied, I do apologize. To rephrase, the rear setup is the most critical to the impression of ride quality and is extremely sensitive to how the front is setup. Front rebound can be 'pretty close', but you will know something is not right when the rear rebound damping is not spot on in relation to what the front is doing. I can assure you this is true. In slow damper acceleration situations the car will pitch back and fourth having gone over bumps. Another aspect of rear damper tuning is high damper acceleration situations the rear suspension mass itself will have a very annoying hysteresis tendency. CVSA damper technology makes getting it right dead easy.

Secondly, with regard to the S90 rear airbag option, both load leveling and an adjustable, rising rate spring effect can be achieved in the rear with the optional airbag rear only 'springs'. This is exactly what is needed to retain good ride quality with markedly increased cargo loads. It is hardly just a truck with rear airbags. The engineering goal intended to keep ride height AND ride quality independent of cargo loading, and this it does achieve though use of chambered airbags and specifically, the addition of CVSA damper technology on all four corners.

With "Airmatic", front and rear air bag "springs" allow both ride height adjustment and implementation of adjustable, but not instantaneously variable, spring rates. However, these effects were simply not a target of the Volvo engineers. One cannot fault Volvo out of hand for having different design goals.

"Airmatic" exists because many sections of Autobahn still have no speed limit. Given this possibility of 200+ kph road speeds, lowering ride height and increasing spring rates is a great stability enhancement. Vehicle control at 250 kph demands higher spring rates. These same higher spring rates make for a stiff ride below 80 kph. Meanwhile, if you can lower it, you may as well make it so you can raise it, too! These spring related features are the only significant technical differences between the E300 and S90 suspension setup capability.

It is important for forum members to realize the Tenneco/Monroe CVSA damping system technology AND ITS EFFECT ON RIDE QUALITY are identical between the two cars. The "Airmatic" airbags still must have their motion controlled by dampers, the same as steel springs. It is here appropriate to point out that pure hydraulic suspension systems can achieve control of squat, dive (both pitch motions) and roll, but due to the compressibility of air, airbags cannot.

The air chambers of the AIRMATIC system would not control damping of roll very well. Roll can be biased by ride height adjustability in theory, but the fact is, chassis dynamic changes occur too quickly for airbags to have the desired effect. Here I think it best to quote Mercedes on Airmatic itself:

"Bumpy country road or modern motorway: the AIRMATIC air suspension system adapts the suspension to the prevailing conditions. The damping of each wheel self-adjusts according to the current driving situation and the condition of the road. This happens fast and precisely by means of two separate valves for rebound and compression in each damper. AIRMATIC thereby provides maximum ride comfort for any situation".

This precisely describes their use of Tenneco/Monroe CVSA damper technology.

Damper compression and rebound rates also control turn-in and corner exit behavior. Here, some really neat tricks can be accomplished with CVSA technology . Dynamic chassis behavior is a very complex series of relationships. There are no correct numbers, as corning is a process of constant dynamic transition. There are myriad of ways to get it wrong and several ways of getting a setup that works very well. Then, there are the finely tuned, excellent suspensions the result of hours and hours of on road testing. The CVSA technology is the key element here, not airbags. Not anyone's airbags.

Dynamic effects of dive and squat again occur too quickly for airbags to control. In fact, these motions are also controlled using instantly variable CVSA shock technology and often a trick in four link suspension geometry that uses either acceleration or brake torque effects to keep the car from diving or squatting. Jim Hall of Chaparral CanAm cars invented this 'anti-dive' feature for his ground effects race cars in the 1960's. He also invented the use of the wings on race cars.

Airbags can be used to control ride height and to adjust spring rates. These features of airbags have nothing to do with any motion damping per se. (Dual coil and progressive wound springs can achieve a similar purpose to airbags, but obviously are not real time adjustable and are application specific. On race cars they are track or road condition specific.)

Furthermore, the kinetic energy put into the suspension by bumps must be absorbed and dissipated in the form of heat generation. This is what the dampers do, they turn acceleration and deceleration forces into heat. The energy levels under some circumstances can be quite high. As an example, WRC Group A rally cars long had water cooled shocks, lest the dampers overheat and lose effect.

Think about it....cars sit on their springs and drive on their shocks.

mjsbenz

Mike,

The S90 is very nice. But when you ask in your title of this tread "where is the beef"; the short answer is that it is a Mercedes. I know that sounds a bit obnoxious but the two cars are not in the same league.

Now back to the technical analysis of air shocks.

shortspark

A few months ago I looked at the Volvo and E class (and also the XF) and bought none of the above. The S90 was fairly attractive inside and out but a step behind the E class. The fit and finish of the Jag was clearly lacking. I won't get into the merits of all the technical and mechanical issues we see posted here because for me the primary question in buying a car is safety, fun and practicality - in that order. Things like gas mileage, selling price, etc. are minor, or at least secondary factors.

I was first drawn to the S90 because of one safety feature - big animal alert. I live in deer country and drive only back roads where critters of all type often shoot out without warning. I require the best headlights (my prior MB had the lighting package with bi-Xenon lamps). Those headlights were terrific and I know it saved me from an accident once and possibly twice. The Volvo big game alert would be an added feature but their lamps did not seem as strong as the MB. Of course I only tested them in a dimly lit garage, not at night so I might not have had a good test.

The fun factor means everything to me and both the E class and Volvo seemed a tad lethargic, especially when compared to the supercharged XF, which had no lag whatsoever and was a solid 6 cyl. Unfortunately, the Jaguar did not ride as well as either the MB or Volvo and was overall not very comfortable.

So, as is usually the case, there were good points for all and bad points for all. The Jaguar was fun and beautiful, the Volvo safe and fresh looking (at least the interior) and the MB seemed the most solid and comfortable. I was already an MB owner with excellent service experience at my local dealer which tilted me towards the E class. The fact that Jag and Volvo dealers and any independent authorized mechanics were over a 100 miles away was also a factor. Although I tilted towards the E class I still was not totally happy with the driving experience. In a nutshell, the E class did not seem like a fun car for me to drive on these winding, beautiful back roads where I live. I seldom go to the city and I never see a traffic jam. There are very few police and the roads are in such good shape and design that you could run a legit Formula One race out here. Before I got much older I wanted this next car to be FUN! I was in a quandary. I guess what I really wanted was a sports car but also a luxury vehicle with four doors for practicality purposes although I seldom have back seat passengers.

Then I laid eyes on the most beautiful car I've ever seen with everything I wanted on it sitting on the MB showroom floor - 2017 CLS 550. The moment I test drove it I knew this was the car for me. The iconic four door "coupe" design was timeless and striking. The incredible 278 V8 twin turbo was a beast and the 9G tranny was smooth as silk. The air suspension made the ride comfortable and the interior, although a bit long in the tooth now in design, took a back seat to none of the others in terms of material quality and fit/finish.

The CLS was everything I was looking for although all these cars required a compromise of some sort. With the CLS the compromise was the money factor (value) but like I said, that was down the list for me. I have had more fun with this car than I have had in almost 50 years of driving, ever since I bought a new 1972 Firebird Formula stick muscle car.

So, you have to judge what your priorities are. I think based on the priorities he listed and his rationale, Mike has determined or at least is leaning towards the Volvo as his favorite. Be sure to let us know the results of your extended test drive.

SEC1939

Hi Mike, Are you in the Automotive industry in suspension? Good knowledge from your side. I'm in this industry and have worked on a number of adaptive ride control projects with Tenneco, Delphi, F&S. From on off technology to proportional valves to full active in the mid 90's on Mercedes SL. I have some new things brewing in this space. It's fun

c4004matic

Sounds like you, as me, are the perfect E 43 buyer! Your complaint of a less than thrilling ride are all answered now. Though I was thoroughly impressed by the 300, it is a more sedate car than I like, the E43 provides an ample supply of performance without having to opt for a full blown race car that is the E63. The E 43 is expensive, but if you treasure performance, well worth the premium.

c4004matic

It is important for forum members to realize the Tenneco/Monroe CVSA damping system technology AND ITS EFFECT ON RIDE QUALITY are identical between the two cars. The "Airmatic" airbags still must have their motion controlled by dampers, the same as steel springs. It is here appropriate to point out that pure hydraulic suspension systems can achieve control of squat, dive (both pitch motions) and roll, but due to the compressibility of air, airbags cannot.

This is simply incorrect since when one side is compressing the springs the other side is pulling on the shocks!!!!! Simple physics! you can counteract roll or dive by resisting compression on one side or increasing dampening on the other! And... exactly the reason airmatic can do a ton of things that a rear only system cant! Again its like comparing rear only abs to 4 channel ABS.

c4004matic

Now compare that to a single axle system and you can understand why the big difference in performance and comfort.

DC-IT

Instead of the S90, I was attracted to the Volvo V90.
Like the OP I'm contemplating to retire in the next year or two and limit my motoring needs to a single vehicle. The wagon style of the V90 is very attractive and provides great utility whilst still getting better FE than a SUV.

Mike__S

Please be more attentive! You continue to confuse hydraulic (very high pressure oil pistons) type systems with pneumatic (airbag) type suspension. The E300 "Airmatic" is nothing like "Active Body Control" suspension in this video.

I had resisted the temptation until now, but you have very much reminded me of Wolfgang Pauli's sardonic witticism regarding a graduate student paper he was asked to comment on: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

Quackledork

I test drove the S90 and E300 on the same day about two months ago. They are both great cars. And ultimately its a personal preference thing. I did not get either, I decided to get a 2017 CLS. Just can't let go of that V8.

The S90 is a worthy competitor to the E300. There are many areas where I felt the S90 was superior.

The Sensus iPad-like infotainment system is awesome. Its much better than the COMAND system. Its simpler and more functional.

The S90 seats are worlds better. The S90 Cabin overall feels more refined. It is elegant and classy. Every switch and knob has weight and feels good. The wood trim is spectacular. The B&O audio is stunning, and those speaker grilles are super cool.

The E300 has some plasticky components, and the command knob is difficult to use no matter how you use it. However, the touch pads on the steering wheel are cool.

The engine in the S90 is strong and potent. Much stronger feeling than the E300. The S90 is a bit rougher, but it sounds better. The E is smooth and quiet, but when you push it, the sound is not quite right.

Where the S90 fails is the ride and handling. The ride is numb and the steering is not responsive. The E-class is light years better here.

I was an inch away from leasing a S90 and probably would have picked it over the E300. Once they get some better engines in the E-class and maybe clean up COMAND a bit, the two will be closer. If Volvo improves the handling and ride on the S90 it will be a better car than the E300.

Mike__S

Thank you for the complement.

Very modest motorsports experience with a couple of satisfying achievements, now in the distant past, but no automotive industry experience.

I did take a very deep interest in system dynamics and studied the following text during winter 1982-83. (Fortunately, I already had the requisite maths background.)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/54108948/...amics-by-Ogata

With that under your belt, a lot of engineering technology becomes transparent.

Just for grins, I have degrees in Economics and History. Known to have worked as a policy analyst for a couple of decades and in information systems engineering and management after that. Full retirement at 52. Some less intense, related business activities for another 14 years.

Now really, definitely, fully retired except cooking and doing some handyman repairs on our properties. Still have a couple of hobbies, still read voraciously and we travel a bit.....'the older I get the faster I was' is ever so true.

Since you like pickups, I remember riding in my grandfather's 1938 Diamond T Model 80, which always shined like a red fire engine. Everyone knew when Ed was in town. One of my much older cousins got it in '56, but in the Navy he married a gal in Ireland and stayed there. Not until decades later did it dawn on me, again, how cool that truck really was. Of course by then, that Diamond T was lost in the mists of time. Hopefully it survived.