Boston D.M.D.

Yesterday, some kid "forgot" to stop and yield us the right of way, and we plowed my wife's Toyota Sequoia into his Saturn at 40 MPH....

Both cars are totaled, the kid and his other three 17 y.o. passengers, are lucky to be alive, myself and my wife are just bruised from the seat belt and airbags...

I don't want to bore you with the gory details, but now we have to think about replacing her vehicle with something even safer.

Our choices at this point are...

1) Audi Allroad

2) Audi A6 Avant

3) Volvo XC 90

After yesterday, our priority have completely changed from performance to safety, especially since we have two young children.

Your input is greatly appreciated.....

Arnzo

If you need room what about the Land Cruiser?

RMcQ

Audi quattro is superior to the XC90 AWD. This can mean an active safety advantage to the Audis.

As far as crash worthiness I can only say that Volvo's reputation is solid, but is also a marketing tool. I don't put a lot of weight on the US crash testing standards as they are a bit artificial. The european offset crash test is much better. Perhaps you could find some comparison data on that.

I would say that overall safety differences in these three choices are marginal. You would have to provide more criteria for us to make more recomendations.

Do you need ground clearance?
Where do you live? Snow?
Would you need to tow a trailer?
Performance is ALWAYS a factor
Would you enjoy a manual transmission?

RMcQ

No offense, but so many Americans are weird about safety. Sitting high and weighing 3 tons does not equal safety. SUVs have much higher death rates when involved in crashes due primarily to increased rollovers. Active safety such as handling and braking make non-SUV vehicles safer in the first place because you may avoid an accident and thus never even become part of the statistics.

Much has been posted here before including some great anti-SUV articles/links. I step down from my high-horse now. Sorry.

Boston D.M.D.

in fact the reason I would not buy another Sequoia, or large SUV for that matter, is that due to their ground clearance, they are more prone to rollover in extreme situations.
Also due to weight factor the large SUV are harder to manuever (or stop) in wet or snowy condition.
Furthermore, it would be my wife vehicle and performance is nice, but not her priority.

I guess the Allroad sounds better and better, but what about its reliability? .....

HPH

...quite naturally. It's interesting that there are also several on the A6 board.

Your choice is really between Audi and the Volvo XC90. The allroad is basically the A6 Avant with (1) the 2.7T (which isn't in the US Avant but is in the US sedan) and a choice of transmissions (2) the variable height suspension (3) some beefier chassis and other components and (4) bigger overall diameter tires (same as the A8, it appears). There are also the cosmetic differences such as the fender flares -- but overall, given the prices of A6 Avants I've seen, the allroad is a no-brainer.

I can't comment on the XC90, except to say that to me it looks like the Volvo version of the BMW SUV and several other such vehicles. Every time I see my allroad in a parking lot amongst the SUVs, I get this silly grin -- its distinctive elegance, with better combined overall road and offroad capability than any of those other vehicles, just continues to knock me out.

Mr You

The Audis win here.

I like that you can program the Allroad to drop a little lower.

john-ks

buy the LC only if I did a lot of serious off roading.

The ar handles better, rides better and performs better. Will handle all highway/byway driving beer than a LC. The LC is zero problems(owned two since 1993 with a total of over 125,000 miles with no maintenance except tires, brakes and oil changes). The ar has had one minor problem in 15,000 miles.

As far as safety goes, I have had some type of SUV since 1979, before anyone had heard of a SUV, and have never come close to turning one over. I put my three kids in Jeep Cherokee's and they put several hundred thousand miles on the four they owned and never turned one over. My opionion, no scienific fact, is most turnovers would happen no matter what the vehicle was.

rdar

I had been driving SUVs since 1987 until I traded off a Navigator for the ar. Never had a problem with rollover even with the Bronco II (could rollover on slight incline). Had a 1/2 ton p/u rear end the Nav on a freeway, I stopped he didn't. The p/u bounced off, not sure it would have been the same in the ar. A couple weeks ago there was a video of an SUV rear ending a stopped car on ice (I think it was in Chicago). The SUV went over the rear of the car and flipped over against a bus. I suspect the ar would not have flipped but it's hard to tell. Which is safer? I hope the ar will provide better defense against having an accident. The Navigator it was hit the brakes and hope for the best.

martinAR

All I can say is give them a shot, try them all out.
I've test drove one AR this last weekend and all I can say is that it's like no other SUV-like vehicle that I've ever driven.
Also while seeing the car arrive the place where I was waiting, just assured me that's the car I want to have.
Hope it helps