[kevinxb]

Curious what the forum thinks of cars like the XC40 P8 and Polestar 2 that are on the CMA platform and whether these are "ICE conversion" EVs. I've seen a few comments on reddit lately in the electric vehicles subreddit saying this as a reason not to consider these cars.

I realize the gas XC40 went on sale first, but Volvo announced years ago that the CMA platform was being developed for gas, hybrid and EV drivetrains.

Does it bother you when folks call these ICE conversion EVs?

To me, cars like the e-Golf, 500e and Focus Electric are ICE conversions, as they had smaller batteries, sacrificed interior space and limited range. They were also compliance cars that often weren't available everywhere the ICE models were sold.

I saw the same commenter later defending Hyundai for using a "modular platform" for the Kona electric and making incorrect claims about efficiency and charging speeds of the Polestar.

It just bothered me that they're potentially swaying buyers away from what I think are great EV choices because of misinformation. When I tried to correct them, I was met with downvotes in typical reddit fashion. I should spend less time on there.

 

[VinceC]

Although it is a fair concern, I have't noticed any compromises on our XC40 Recharge as a result of it being a powertrain flexible platform, except maybe the size of the frunk and that is just a guess. This platform was designed with ICE and BHEV in mind, whereas with those others examples it was an afterthought.

 

[1moreRobot]

Although it is a fair concern, I have't noticed any compromises on our XC40 Recharge as a result of it being a powertrain flexible platform, except maybe the size of the frunk and that is just a guess. This platform was designed with ICE and BHEV in mind, whereas with those others examples it was an afterthought.

One thing that comes to mind is the big hump in the rear floor. Isn’t that a vestigial limb for the AWD transaxle in an ICE model? I know they probably pack batteries or something in it for the recharge, but it would have been nice had they flattened that out.

 

[arijaycomet]

My first thought reading @kevinxb post was basically the response above from @1moreRobot — obviously there have been some cars/cases where the tunnel holds batteries intentionally. There is actually nothing wrong with the T-shape battery design. But I think it goes without saying that the CMA platform was built for a drive shaft in the gas cars, and batteries in the EV version in that same space. It can be argued whether it was smart design (allowing both cars to use the tunnel area for different reason), or poor choices (when compared to the flat rear floor of a skateboard design like the Tesla, or other EVs that have adopted such a style.

To be fair, we are just at the onset of the whole idea that a BEV-specific platform could exist. And while most larger manufacturers have no choice but to transition over time, and need platform sharing for cost effectiveness, that does put them up against the competition. I don’t think there is any real reason to “knock” these legacy makers for sharing; we’ve seen this platform modular architecture being used for a very long time. It just comes down to a creative use of space. (Another great example would be the location/size etc of the “fuel door” on the XC40 gas vs electric being same)

At the end of the day the Reddit’ors are just like any other social media platform. I had the same issue with an Instagram post where I said “your next car is probably going to be electric” and all my car friends bashed me for it. What is most interesting here is that the first post and all replies thus far are USA-based people. Where our mentality is “you cant tell me what to do” — and “my car, my choice” — and while i dont want to make this political, the rest of the world laughs at us while they recognize “the greater good“ —

Just look at the percentage of electric cars in European countries. Granted much of this comes from government incentives … but its also a delta in how people “think” — ROW vs USA -- my suggestion: avoid those conversations in places like Reddit. I learned my lesson the other day, even just amongst car friends who are “petrol heads or die” lol

 

[cav8tor]

My understanding of the CMA platform that the XC40 is built on is that it was made to do ICE, hybrid and EV so it was designed with all those in mind. That being said, there may have been compromises in the CMA design to be able to do all three such that it isn't optimized for any of them (e.g. some compromises were likely made to accommodate all three rather than if it had been designed for one of the three only from the outset).

 

[VinceC]

One thing that comes to mind is the big hump in the rear floor. Isn’t that a vestigial limb for the AWD transaxle in an ICE model? I know they probably pack batteries or something in it for the recharge, but it would have been nice had they flattened that out.

Good point

 

[XC90_Dinosaur]

I saw the same commenter later defending Hyundai for using a "modular platform" for the Kona electric and making incorrect claims about efficiency and charging speeds of the Polestar.

It just bothered me that they're potentially swaying buyers away from what I think are great EV choices because of misinformation. When I tried to correct them, I was met with downvotes in typical reddit fashion. I should spend less time on there.

It was always done that way. They will advertise it like it is a spaceship. In the end it is nothing more than ordinary cheap car. Look at the TV and other mainstream and what do you see - junk food and junk cars.

 

[Greg S]

Yeah, some people say “dedicated” EV from ground up is better than something like the XC40, but I think in general the XC40EV is a great compromise. In fact, most of the dedicated EV platforms have things like thick battery pack under the whole floor, resulting in a less comfortable seating position than the XC40 which has lower foot position, particularly for the rear occupants. Yes, there’s a tunnel in the rear seat that houses some battery pack, but let’s face it, would you rather have comfortable seating for 4 people (and 5 in a pinch) or compromised seating position (knees up in the air like a Tesla Model 3) so you can get 5 people in the back all with their knees up in the air LOL??) Also, the weight issue...but if you look at the X40EV weight vs. similar AWD performance EV SUVs like the Audi eTron and even the dual-motor VW ID4, and dual-motor Hyundai Ioniq 5, the XC40 is about the same weight...so no real gain there by having a dedicated EV platform. OK, the XC40 is less efficient than a Tesla Model Y, but yeah, Tesla has everyone beat for efficiency and their cars look a bit “blobby” due to the aerodynamics. The efficiency of the XC40 is similar to other dual-motor performance EVs...all that said, I’m extremely happy with the XC40 EV (other than the minor software glitches so far). I look forward to many years with this car.

 

[He Keith]

I am not concerned about the multi-purpose platform design. One could argue that in a transitionary time this was a good idea to recoup a lot of he R&D on this platform vs. a dedicated platform that will take years and billions of $$ and longer time to recoup the investment. Volvo does not have the cash that other big names do so in many way as they needed a small SUV in the lineup this turned out to probably be their best option. Also for many people this eases the transition into EV as the XC40 looks and feels like any other compact SUV. A pure EV design usually leads to a racked windscreen with A pillars pushed very far forward and a racked back. I recall each time I test drove the ID.4 it was something you have to get used to when you drive it, the A pillar potions intruded on side view visibility at intersections and the rear slope restricted rear visibility.

What surprises me is the 400HP they went for. My guess is if they scaled the motors down so that the car was ~300HP they might have been able to get some better efficiency tweaks. I suspect they knew they needed those numbers for the Polestar so just went with it for the XC40.Other than the ID.4 all the other SUV/CUV EVs have basically sedan like ground clearance and seating height since they use the entire floor pan for the battery. I do wish Volvo figured out a way to squeeze more efficiency out of it, but in the end with the latest EPA numbers of ~223 the AWD ID.4 is 249 and has 100 less HP and basically disable the front motor much of the time. And if you follow Volvo recommendations to 90% SOC that gets you around 200 miles and VW recommends 80% SOC which ironically gets you around 200 miles of range on day to day driving. Sure on long trips the VW will have the advantage, but most people drive these cars around town. Most weeks I charge once a week.

 

[kevinxb]

It's interesting that you compare the ID.4. People point out the lack of a flat floor as a carryover concession from ICE vehicles but the XC40 and Polestar both have frunks which neither of the production ID series vehicles have, and those are EV specific platforms and its a feature many buyers have come to expect in electric vehicle.

 

[He Keith]

The ID.4 gave up the frunk for more back cargo space, I actually think that was a wide choice as the XC40 frunk is rather useless other than for the factory charging cable. The driving dynamic of the XC40 and ID.4 differ as does the interior martials. The real interesting comparison will be the Audi Q4 as that will be comparable from a target audience to the XC40, but will lack 100HP and is more designed to behave like a traditional ICE car. Volvo has a decent incentive right now (especially considering the car shortage) with .99% for 60 months or up to $2K off ($1K is Volvo Loyalty). Considering that interest rates are most likely going to go up next year it might be a good time to buy.

 

[Gaffaa]

With the CMA design as far as the BEV the main structural change was extra bracing in the front because of the lack of an ICE to provide crash protection.

 

[Rousie13]

The ID.4 gave up the frunk for more back cargo space, I actually think that was a wide choice as the XC40 frunk is rather useless other than for the factory charging cable. The driving dynamic of the XC40 and ID.4 differ as does the interior martials. The real interesting comparison will be the Audi Q4 as that will be comparable from a target audience to the XC40, but will lack 100HP and is more designed to behave like a traditional ICE car. Volvo has a decent incentive right now (especially considering the car shortage) with .99% for 60 months or up to $2K off ($1K is Volvo Loyalty). Considering that interest rates are most likely going to go up next year it might be a good time to buy.

Currently you can get the 0.99% AND up to $2k off ($1k bonus cash and $1k loyalty) AND $500 if you are a first responder/teacher/etc.

 

[santellavision]

Also, the EV charging port is where the gas tank filler was. Goofy place in rear left as it's not convenient for my garage charger.

 

[MMK]

1) Being in a manufacturing supply chain environment, I can appreciate the stream-lining effort that is both ICE and EV casings going through majority of the same lines until it branches off to accommodate the finished product.
2) As a first time EV owner, it was a much easier transition as all the common touch knobs are familiar without going extreme "space-ship" technology which can be intimidating at first
3) Perhaps it's truly a beta "test run" in global market to gauge how Volvo EVs would fair amongst its competitors without investing heavily on a totally new design etc but end up min. to no ROI to show for - Volvo may test the water conservatively to see how to capture a different group of demographics -- but this theory doesn't stand either because within months, the CX40 was introduced which somewhat a different external, but still very familiar setup internally

To date, I absolutely love the ride, comfort and level of confidence it gives me on the road. And it's not an exaggerated sense of security either.....the tires clamp to the ground, steering wheel that moves with you, and with a slight touch even at 70 mph to pass an 18-wheeler, it really does GOoooo.....!

 

[Welland canada recharge]

Also, the EV charging port is where the gas tank filler was. Goofy place in rear left as it's not convenient for my garage charger.

Perfect for me - cord is at the back - do not have to trip over it when going to the drivers door or driver side rear door to retrieve items from the vehicle.

 

[Greg S]

Perfect for me - cord is at the back - do not have to trip over it when going to the drivers door or driver side rear door to retrieve items from the vehicle.

The charge port position is an interesting one. I’m happy with it. However note on the petrol (aka gasoline) XC40 the fuel filler is on the RH rear, whereas on the EV it’s on the LH rear, so they had to do a fairly significant design change to accommodate that...odd. And on the plug-in hybrid XC40 (not available in USA) the charge port is on the left front...so technically they could have put the EV charge port in the same place. Must be a reason for it!

 

[He Keith]

Also, the EV charging port is where the gas tank filler was. Goofy place in rear left as it's not convenient for my garage charger.

Actually the ICE XC40 gas cap is right rear in the US and the charge port is left rear.

 

[SeattleCat]

I am not concerned about the multi-purpose platform design. One could argue that in a transitionary time this was a good idea to recoup a lot of he R&D on this platform vs. a dedicated platform that will take years and billions of $$ and longer time to recoup the investment. Volvo does not have the cash that other big names do so in many way as they needed a small SUV in the lineup this turned out to probably be their best option. Also for many people this eases the transition into EV as the XC40 looks and feels like any other compact SUV. A pure EV design usually leads to a racked windscreen with A pillars pushed very far forward and a racked back. I recall each time I test drove the ID.4 it was something you have to get used to when you drive it, the A pillar potions intruded on side view visibility at intersections and the rear slope restricted rear visibility.

What surprises me is the 400HP they went for. My guess is if they scaled the motors down so that the car was ~300HP they might have been able to get some better efficiency tweaks. I suspect they knew they needed those numbers for the Polestar so just went with it for the XC40.Other than the ID.4 all the other SUV/CUV EVs have basically sedan like ground clearance and seating height since they use the entire floor pan for the battery. I do wish Volvo figured out a way to squeeze more efficiency out of it, but in the end with the latest EPA numbers of ~223 the AWD ID.4 is 249 and has 100 less HP and basically disable the front motor much of the time. And if you follow Volvo recommendations to 90% SOC that gets you around 200 miles and VW recommends 80% SOC which ironically gets you around 200 miles of range on day to day driving. Sure on long trips the VW will have the advantage, but most people drive these cars around town. Most weeks I charge once a week.

I agree about the 402Hp we got as being surprising. Most companies seem to be initially going with a one axel or a scaled down power approach.

I think they did 402 deliberately to make their first ev sexy. Every time we swoosh from a light it says evs can easily be powerful. It also gave them an excuse to charge us more for them.

If given the choice to buy a:
1. 201HP fwd
2. 300 awd
3. 402 awd

Which would you buy? I know I should be sensible and get 1 or 2 but I am enjoying the swoosh (when I want not all the while now) and would still buy #3 at a premium.

Hopefully soon Volvo will have 2 or even all 3 choices.

 

[He Keith]

I do think some of the reason for the 402HP is the Polestar and they will also probably use the same motors in the new XC90 EV which may wind up being 6000 lbs.