Model year 2021. Volvo now limits to 180 km / h.

Faster, safer. Volvo limits to 180 km / h. All models from model year 2021, which production is now starting, are affected. The Swedish manufacturer focuses on more safety and sustainability in road traffic. Exciting! Because what will the customer acceptance be like? Will they buy a Swedish car in the future that locks at 180?

Volvo V90 model year 21. Limited to 180 km / h.
Volvo V90 model year 21. Limited to 180 km / h.

I remember ... Years ago I drove American SUVs - from Chevrolet or Jeep, and I found their limitation at higher speeds annoying and sometimes even dangerous. It was probably a wise decision. The chassis, tires and brakes did not meet European requirements. That is why it was better for both material and people to force the brakes on at 170, 180.

But now Volvo? Granted, Volvo drivers are not under general suspicion of aggressively poaching in the left lane. Other brands are clearly ahead. And outside of Germany, the option of free travel only plays a theoretical role, so what could go wrong? A whole lot! German brands live from the Autobahn image. But not only. If you buy a European vehicle in Asia, you get a lot of image in addition to a banked bank account. In addition, the promise to be able to drive much faster than 120, 130 safely. With the unwavering belief that the chassis and brakes are designed for it. That this promise will remain extremely optional is secondary.

Things can disappoint, possibilities never.

Volvo could come up with the idea of ​​saving in parallel with the limitation. On brake systems, on the chassis. The manufacturer has assured that it does not want to do that. Which sounds reassuring. The temptation remains, however, because the temptation to maximize profits is always around the next corner. Hopefully Volvo will resist it.

Back to the speed-limited American vehicles from the start of the post. Your limitation was accepted because there was a lot of vehicle for comparatively little money. This is not the case with Volvo. In recent years, pricing has rushed from what can be called bourgeois. High prices go hand in hand with high expectations. Volvo meets these in terms of design and the use of mostly selected materials. Will that be enough and distract from the fact that the Swede only runs 180 at the front door, while neighbors expensive BMW is much brisker?

Ultimately, the limit of 180 km / h is a question of maturity.

The buyer's. That's what you bet on in Gothenburg. Understanding that resources are finite and life is precious. In principle, 180 are still too fast. The Swedes refine their decision with other components. Cameras and sensors accompany the journey and, if necessary, reduce the speed to a standstill if the driver shows signs of failure. With the model year 2021, the Care Key concept is standard on every new Volvo. It enables the speed to be limited even further individually. To a lower value that makes you feel safe on the go. Or at a speed that family drivers can trust and which gives the owner of the vehicle a good feeling.

It remains to be seen whether Volvo will succeed with the limitation. The trend towards an electric car speaks for an upcoming speed limit in Germany as well. The environmental discussion, which is currently losing some of its attention behind the Corona crisis, also. But cars are irrational things. Just as people were proud to be able to afford the fastest horse in town, today a potent car still seems to have to park in front of the door. It is not for nothing that Mercedes sells the AMG models and BMW the vehicles with the familiar M on the bow like sliced ​​bread.

It's all a question of maturity, and in the end it will show how far we have really come with it since switching from horses to cars.

Picture / Video (1/1): Volvo Cars

34 thoughts on "Model year 2021. Volvo now limits to 180 km / h."

  • Brave new world where everything is regulated. An abomination for freedom-loving people. I recommend reading the classics of utopias or dystopias (1984, Brave New World, etc.) - all of this was predicted 100 years ago. At the beginning it still seems nice that everything is prescribed from above “for our better”. But then …

  • To tell the truth, I don't know if Volvo uses standard tires from the tire industry, but I would be very surprised.
    I know from German manufacturers that tires with wear indicators are fitted as original equipment, I would be surprised if Volvo would not do this, a tire variant that they often do not get in the independent tire trade.

    I read from Opel and VW that they sometimes get special tire versions in which the rigidity of the tire flanks is optimally matched to the suspension of their vehicles. This probably only applies to the standard tires ordered in large quantities. I can't say whether that's the case with Volvo.

    In any case, I assume that the large manufacturers will definitely buy special versions of the tires for original equipment. Then there is the question of whether another change would really make the roast fat? In particular, one that results in lower high-speed strength.

  • @ StF (tires),

    extremely steep thesis. The last tire I bought with index T was a 15 ″ winter tire 195/65 ...

    A tar cutter by today's standards. Does Volvo currently have a single car with these wheel and tire dimensions in its range?

    Could be difficult for Volvo to go on T or even S. They don't find what they're looking for on the market and save special money if they have special requests.

    I think the tire question will be eliminated for now. The final exams for customers will be a very exciting experiment with an open outcome ...

  • The regulation at 180 km / h is presumably not only a question of maturity but also a question of tires. Where tires with a speed index H or V were previously required because the vehicles were specified with a top speed of more than 200 km / h, tires with a speed index T will probably be fitted in the future (I suspect that one will not go to S exactly borderline) .

    This means that Volvo can save a little on original equipment (relatively little per tire, but the mass does it) and customers can also save a little on the replacement.

  • Dear Mr. Hürsch, I don't think you want to understand me at all or just see your opinion.
    The engine must match the car!
    I drive a lot of different engines.
    Our 9-3 1,8 T runs very harmoniously with 150 PS
    and 240 NM. A comparable three-cylinder with significantly less displacement would not drive like this.
    At a motorway speed of 160 km / h, it would also consume significantly more fuel or in trailer operation!

    40 - 50 years ago, the demands on a car were different ... .. also the top speeds.
    My Ford Capri 1,6 liter 72 PSAutomatic only has a top speed of 151.
    The car moves ... .. but it also weighs very little ... has no radio, for example.
    But you can't compare that to today.

    I am glad that you have fun with your 2,0 T. I would certainly have it too.
    And that Saab no longer builds cars is a shame ... but there is also something positive ... no three-cylinder and I still have the current model with the 9-3 station wagon ... there is no successor ... ... just kidding ... .

    I am looking forward to getting to know her personally.

  • I am pleased that you are having such a wonderful time ..

    Meanwhile, I have more fun with my stunted small engine (2.0t) than you with your 185 horses. I spoke of intelligent downsizing and I don't think within as narrow limits as you ...

    You, Monsieur Capri, of course have the only optimal engine, the golden mean.

    At 2.5 you are already talking about a large engine and at 2.0 you are talking about a minimum. It also has to be a four-cylinder. Strictly speaking, it has to be your car ...

    If it were up to you, automotive history and the world would be poorer by a number of exciting vehicles, engines and designs.

    And in Sweden not a single car would have been built before 1968 ...

    And as far as the future is concerned, 1.6 is only 20% smaller than 2.0. Engines are already being produced in series today that more than double their 2.3t liter output and torque.

    And above all, Saab would probably do just that today (see comment from Tom) ...

    But just laugh. You will have good reasons and forever the only gold-correct car ever built.

  • Dear Mr. Hürsch, you are welcome to buy a Mondeo with a three-cylinder 1 liter engine. It's easier and more economical, as they claim.
    Maybe you can also have your 9-5 converted. The size of the engine fits in the 9-5!
    I can't get out of laughing anymore.
    By the way, I'm sticking to 2,3 liters of turbo!

  • Thank you ! (@ Tom)

  • Alright (almost) right. The BMW engines were for the 9-3 III (Phoenix) that never came. And for 9-4x II and 9-5 III. In the 9-5 NG there were only GM engines in whose development Trollhättan was partially involved. The 1.6 was unfortunately just an uninspired Opel engine.

  • Interrupt?

    Anytime. I am now perplexed and like to learn. There was a lot of talk of BMW in the course of the bankruptcy. Of delivered engines and liabilities ...

    To be honest, I seriously thought the 1.6 was from BMW and from the Mini ...

    Any form of correction and clarification is very welcome.

  • Oh well. I hate to interrupt the discussion. The 1.6T was anything but a source of joy in the 9-5 NG. A GM engine that could only be made with a (unofficial) tuning leg. In my opinion the wrong engine in this car.

  • No, even in practice, lighter cars consume less than heavy ones.

    You may not like that, but it is still so.

  • It all sounds pretty good on paper and for EU values.
    The practice looks different……

  • @ Capri 73,

    you postulated that very nicely and carved it in stone.

    And yet Koenigsegg is now building a highly potent three-cylinder and the 1.6T in the NG has 30 horses more than the 2.0t in the predecessor and even an almost identical torque curve ...

    Had it not been my choice - I have to admit it honestly. But today I would prefer an NG SC with the 1.6er to any Mazda, if it were there.

    Depending on the equipment, it is up to 300 kg lighter than the 2.8T XWD and also has more payload.

    Intelligent downsizing is possible.
    Very easily !

  • Dear Mr. Hürsch,
    my text is not difficult to understand!
    The size of the engine should match the size of the car! A 1,6 T just doesn't fit a 9-5!
    And a 1 liter three-cylinder does not become a compact car and Mazda is on the right track!
    Very easily !

  • It is always extremely exciting to read the comments when it comes to speed and its limitation or limitation. That will always be a hot topic here in Germany.
    I travel a lot and yes, you really don't need a car that drives faster than 180 km / h. Many things in everyday life are over proportioned or even unnecessary. Only in the car is the sword brought out right now.
    However, I totally reject two things. On the one hand the claim that you are immature if you would like to drive 181 km / h 😉 and the patronizing of a manufacturer who wants to force me not to be able to drive faster. I like to make this, sensible or unreasonable, or mature or immature decision myself. That is why Volvo is out of my focus for me.

  • @ Capri 73,

    yes what now? First you say that cubic capacity saves fuel and now that the higher liter output is the more efficient solution and the aero (2.3T) is also ecologically superior to your 2.3t.

    Please check that this doesn't make sense to me.

    Either the bigger engine is better per se (then you should get a fat V8), or there are actually possibilities for intelligent downsizing ...

    I thought this discussion had long been decided. Especially on a Saab blog. I never noticed the brand because of its large displacement ...

    Rather, because a relatively small 4-cylinder (9K Aero) contemporary V8 can show a performant and ecologically intelligent stink finger.

    What's going on here suddenly?

    Displacement cannot be replaced by anything, except displacement, can hardly and seriously be dogma on a Saab blog? ? ?

  • Dear Mr. Hürsch, a lot of car newspapers can confirm my point of view. If such a small motor is required, it starts to drink.
    Take a look at the current AutoBild Allrad the towing vehicle test of the Honda CRV 1,5 VTEC with 173 HP. No pleasure to pull a 2T trailer with such a car and the consumption first.
    With my 9-5 2,3 T 185 PS I easily pull a horse trailer with 1,7 T into the Waldecker Land with 13 liter consumption.
    Take a look at the Saab 9-5 catalog!
    The most economical gasoline engine is the AERO with the highest performance!

    @ Tom, yes Subaru still builds great cars with cubic capacity!

  • Yes, Mazda is doing it right. Beyond the mainstream. By the way, Subaru too. 2.5 liters, 4 pots, without charging. Not bad. An old Saab 9000, with or without turbo, still drives in with the 2.3 liter fantastic fuel consumption figures. Cubic capacity can hardly be replaced, and power or economical consumption lie in peace.

  • @ Capri 73,

    just as you think ...

    With this opinion you are in good company. In the USA, under the impression of the oil crisis at the time, V8s with 5.4 liters were reduced to 140 hp and the miracle was accomplished….

    Consumption was thirds compared to 420 PS and the performance compared to a 140 PS European continues to be a multiple ...

    It's also logical that a car with 2,7 times the displacement has 2,7 times the acceleration and top speed, like a 2.0 liter ...

    The things actually drove over 500 km / h and were from 3 to 0 in 100 seconds. And because displacement cannot be replaced ecologically by anything other than displacement, they also used less fuel by a factor of 2,7.

    That was about 4 liters in the city center and only 2 liters on country roads ...

    Seriously, don't you seriously want to set the displacement anti-proportional to consumption and environmental protection?
    And what would be typical of Saab and what could you explain and justify physically?

  • 'Dear customers, we have shrunk the drives' has already happened at Volvo, more than 2 liters of displacement and 4 cylinders are not available for money or good words. You can call the limitation at 180 km / h almost logical.

    In this context, I find the question of whether a Volvo always has to be able to reach these 180 km / h, or should it be interesting? Or are entry-level models also conceivable in which the maximum drive power is 'only' sufficient for 160 - 170 km / h if even the top-of-the-line car does not reach more than 180 km / h?

    Maybe that's the next step that Volvo dares to use a three-cylinder on the 90 series hybrid models?

  • Mazda shows how to do it right! Displacement instead of small engines. The new Skyactiv X with 180 hp is very economical and sufficiently fast.
    In a Saab 9-5 or upper middle class a minimum of a 2 liter engine belongs.
    Ford even tried it in the Mondeo with a 3 cylinder 1 liter and 125 hp. Something like that doesn't work at all ... .. from 120 km / h an engine is so exhausted that it starts to drink!

  • since I will definitely not buy a new car on my remaining life on Saturday 67, let alone drive it, I don't care.

    I'm currently looking for a 900 turbo and a 914/6 wide body, preferably 2.4 or more.

    These traffic educators can ...

    I always drive fast and always adapted, I'm not a jostler and certainly not a sneak, I have 0 points despite about 15.000 km / anno, but the madness has slowly but surely a system

  • Much more consistent ...

    I found Saab's move more than 10 (!) years ago. In a car of more than 5 meters an engine from a mini? ? ?

    The 1.6T in the NG was a sensation. If we want to save fuel and continue to build combustion engines, we have to take dimensions and weight into account.

    An electronic limiter brings exactly zero point in the city, on the country road and limited highways.

    It makes no difference whether it is installed in a 400 hp Volvo, a Porsche Cayenne or a 660 hp AMG.

    At best, you save fuel in Germany on a few km of unlimited motorway. It's not called German, but Global Warming ...

    Smaller engines allow lighter clutches and transmissions, lighter vehicles allow smaller braking systems (and thus become even lighter) and so on and so forth ...

    The lighter a car becomes, the more environmentally friendly and agile it is, even with a relatively small engine. It's about intelligent hardware and physical laws, not software that has never broken a single one of all physical laws ...

  • In addition to Saab, I also drive a Lexus SUV. It is also limited to 180. That has never bothered me. I think it's good that way ...

  • In recent years, it has been increasingly observed that many Audi and BMW drivers have a Volvo
    have changed. Unfortunately, they drive like this. As a result, Volvo drivers can be seen jostling on the highway. It wasn't like that before!
    I hope these buyers turn away from a Volvo because of the limitation.
    For this reason, I welcome the limitation to 180 km / h.

    Such ruthless drivers do not fit a Volvo or a Saab, by the way!
    The clientele of Volvo and Saab drivers usually drives very considerately and relaxed.

  • Finally an automobile manufacturer that takes responsibility in advance!
    There were also motorists who didn't want to buckle up ......
    In addition to my old Saab, a Volvo as an everyday car: gladly again and again.

  • My “ship” also has a “limitation” (at 210 km / h).

    I actually never drive that fast even on free motorways (or, for example, only at the beginning to test this limitation). I prefer to “slide” read to speed! 😉

    But I'm still not a big fan of a general limitation.
    A “limitation” should start voluntarily in everyone's mind (and it can also be different from case to case and then also situation to situation).

    Couldn't that be solved differently and in the meantime more intelligently, for example, without excessive top speeds, but without losing any of the actual “performance”?

  • Quote:
    It's all a question of maturity, and ultimately it will be shown how far we've really got since moving from horse to car.
    Perfect! This shows "on a small scale" how far we have developed (further) as humans ...
    (In my rural area I know 3 (!!!) AMG owners ... 🙁)
    Oh yes, I give VOLVO the success of the marketing story.

  • For me personally, the limitation does not matter, I am currently driving a powerful Volvo station wagon, because it is MY 2020, it has no limit yet, but in Switzerland we are officially not allowed to go faster than 120 km / h anyway.
    I don't think Volvo will sell significantly fewer vehicles because of the limitation, as a Volvo stands for comfort, safety and durability rather than sportiness.

  • Even the Swedes ...

    don't seem ripe for it. The density of younger and youngest Volvos in the country is enormous.
    Despite the ownership, there appears to be some pride and solidarity with the brand.

    And they are almost always on the move. It's irrational to have a lot under the hood, but they have it, almost everyone has it! ! !

    You see a lot more T-something than models with an entry-level unit ...

    Maybe the Swedish buyers will join in anyway?

    Brand loyalty is still high. But there are doubts. This applies twice to other markets.

    The environmental and safety aspect is also only limited. Anyone who bought cars yesterday under the aspect that I could if I wanted and should, does not buy overnight under the aspect, even if I wanted and were allowed to, I could no longer ...

    Especially since it does not benefit the environment or safety if horses continue to lurk under the hood for 250 km / h plus and consume more fuel than a smaller and lighter engine in city traffic, on rural roads and highways.

    An electronic bridle is inefficient and a little dishonest. It would be honest and efficient to dimension the engines of cars so small and weak that they couldn't go any faster, even if they wanted and were allowed to.

    Then not only would the top speed drop in the brochure, but also the consumption values. But it would also increase the time for the I-if-I-wanted-sprint from 0 to 100.

    Volvo does not trust its customers with so little I-could and so much insight and reason.

    For me, the limiter is neither fish, meat nor tofu.

    I find it funny that in 2021 my 51 year old 164E will be faster (193 km / h) than all new Gothenburg cars - if I wanted to, of course. It's also funny that I accidentally and voluntarily never accelerated over 180 (a one-off test).

    Now his grandchildren are electronically controlled and so assist on the road. Wow ...

    By the way, I eat fish, meat and tofu, but I probably won't buy a new Volvo ...

  • A purely German problem. Or. Maturity is one thing. Many immature drivers often move on German motorways, mostly with German products. Do you have to with his
    "Family bombers" drive faster than 180 km / h? Saving fuel? Marketing strategists like to boast with 4, 5 or even less consumption, but not with 180+ on the web.
    Otherwise, I am of the same opinion that the market and the Volvo drivers will and show whether this is accepted. Perhaps the first of many manufacturers to take this path in the future.
    I'm driving Saab well.

  • A matter of maturity ... Very well worded, because it really is. Perhaps forward the contribution to Volvo Germany, they could take it over 1: 1. Joking aside…
    I think the limitation is also good and contemporary. In my opinion, it is open whether potential Volvo customers rate this as well. We will see.

  • I personally think the limitation is good, but I wonder what it means for the sales of the stronger model. But we will soon have a speed limit here too, so it is no longer necessary to buy your car after the top speed.


Comments are closed.