'Dumpster Fire in a Train Wreck:' Volvo Is Replacing Every EX90's Computer

joezydeco 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As an XC40 Recharge owner I'm slowly realizing that Volvo/Geely really bet the farm on having a single system run the car and the IVI. There's no other explanation why an OTA upgrade to the system to improve silly little things like ETA in the map display suddenly made the OPD braking system fail. And the backup camera setup still isn't right.

Throwing a faster system at it is a band-aid. It's scary. My car is still on an old 2023 release of code and I'm keeping it there until it's sold. If the backup camera fails again, I'll use the glass window. At least that works.

My dealer invited me to see the EX90 "demo unit" a year and half ago. A demo unit that wasn't drivable and came with a Volvo employee admonishing us from touching any of the controls. Where do I wire my deposit?

	▲	hedora 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The whole automotive industry is doing this to cut costs, and supposedly improve the driving experience. I'll believe that when they ship a single car with a better UI than the pre-touchscreen vehicles I used to own. Until then, there's no way I'm getting any of these stupid software defined vehicles. We have one (Kia EV9), which is also a "dumpster fire in a train wreck", and are getting rid of it. We've had more issues than the people interviewed in the article about the Volvo. So have the other EV9 owners I've talked to.

▲

hedora 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We hit similar problems with our Kia EV9. There was a rumor they were going to push a massive software fix this spring, but it never happened.

Maybe they'll take a page from Volvo's book (assuming the current EV9 is drivable, which I doubt).

▲

AlotOfReading 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The continual and repeated failures of OEM software are Conway's law in action. It's not that the developers are uniquely incapable of writing software. The constraints of the organization make good software a virtually impossible goal.

Moving to a new board based on the same hardware with dual SoCs might help a few bugs around the edges (though I have my doubts), but it doesn't address more fundamental causes. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid it's going to take another 2008-esque disaster for them to really "get" it.

▲

tenacious_tuna 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

previously (july 22 2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44652374 "My Volvo EX90 Experience"

Guy made a CVE style disclosure page about all the issues he'd experienced with his EX90. This feels related.

▲

rangestransform 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why is the ADAS computer the same one as the infotainment computer?

▲

joezydeco 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Pay no attention to that. Did we mention it's NVIDIA? They're cool, right?

	▲	hedora 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In related news: https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/22/ai_safety_seoul_decla... So... an NVIDIA(?)-powered ADAS keeps trying to murder me. Who do I call to get them to pull their boards from the market + flip that remote termination switch they agreed to when they signed on to the Seoul Declaration? edit: Actually, I'm not sure who built said ADAS hardware. The question still stands for the Volvos in the article, assuming replacing the onboard computer doesn't fix the busted software.

▲

muro 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They just launched the 2026 version, so good timing.

▲

EvanAnderson 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is the first I'd heard the phrase "software defined vehicle". That's a chilling combination of words to me.

	▲	muro 16 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This has been creeping in since early 2000s.
	▲	more_corn 15 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Made me shudder

▲

more_corn 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Anybody who thinks “software defined vehicle” is a selling point has never managed software. I don’t want my vehicle to function “because software”. I want it to function “despite software”.