Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Wagons Volvo V70 Volvo V70 Wagon Experience
1827 messages, Last post on Sep 24, 2009 at 12:33 PM
You are in the Volvo V70 Forum. Your Host is kcram
|
Like Fectos, I love the car when it's running. But I sure am dismayed by the UNreliability and Volvo's customer service (for details on what has gone wrong, visit my webpage, www.myvolvosucks.com). Repair issues are one thing, but when the company OUTSOURCES the initial point of contact for corporate customer issues, you have to wonder how much they care. When the transmission on my 1986 sedan went at 66k miles, I wrote the president of Volvo NA and even though the car was past warranty, he authorized it's repair - because the company knew that I hadn't bought a Volvo to have the tranny go at 66K. With this V70 wagon, we haven't suffered really major stuff, but I've had to go back to the dealer EIGHT times in 15K miles? By the way, when the sedan went, I bought a Camry.
|
|
|
After having many problems with our '93 850 GLT Sedan, I was set on going to a Mercedez or Lexus. To make a long story short. After a month of trying different cars and with 3 children, we went with the new '01 V70 2.4T wagon. Love the design - integrated booster seats, rear-facing bench seat, unmatched safety options and luxury refinements. So we're a week into with less than 300 miles! I have to take the car back on Monday to get it serviced because of a popping noise when accelerating into a turn from a stationary position and the electronic door locks and passenger side window doens't work. Unreal. |
|
| Other than a reputation for safety (undeserved since the competition has matched and done better in actual crash tests) I can't think of a good reason to buy a Volvo. They are not up to snuff in the reliability department, styling and ergonomics almost always seem to be lacking and the only engines in their line up that seem to perform require the annoying hassle of a turbocharger. They also tend to have inferior ride and handling. Maybe with Ford's help they will develop a proper V6 and get their act together. | |
| As I understand it, the Saab 9-5 bested the old V70 in European crash testing. | |
|
Regarding post #15: lmeyer1, the Saab 9-5 is a very very safe car. It ranks #1 or #2 against the Volvo S80 in most tests. In Euro NCAP tests it was the Saab 9-5 and Volvo S80 with the highest marks. In IIHS rear-impact tests, the S80 holds the benchmark for neck and spine injury ratings. In NHTSA side-impact tests, the S80 is the only car with 5-stars for both front and rear passengers. In recent IIHS frontal impact tests, the S80 was one of 3 cars to earn the top rating (along with BMW 3 series and Cadillac Catera). The Saab 9-5 didn't far as well but did quite good. While the Saab is very safe, it is the Volvo S80 which consistently rates the best scores in tests around the world. The new 2001 V70 and S60 (coming out tomorrow) are based off this same platform so they should do quite well I believe. Thanks. -rdo russell.ollie  usa.net
|
|
|
Safety: A few years back Volvo got in trouble with the government for an advertisement where their cars were stacked up to show supposed resistance to crushing. The fact was the cars were reinforced and the test was faked. Volvo allowed this to be published, which shows a distinct lack of business ethics, at the time. I believe this was a 240 series car, which is no longer mfgd. Volvo crash safety is fine; they just don't perform any better than equivalent BMW's, Mercedes or Audi's, for example. In the past, Volvo lead in safety development, but this is no longer the case. US government crash tests are more likely inferior to European tests and neither can accurately simulate the real world. Only death and injury statistics (if accurately compiled) would mean anything, if these are available. All around ratings: Can't say I have seen a comparison test of the S80, but the auto mags and Consumer Reports have never picked any Volvo (that I recall) as their number one choice in any comparison test. Engine: V6 or straight six, either design can work well, however, a straight six is a dumb design for front wheel drive cars, which is why it is rarely used. BMW has the best straight sixes (and they almost never use turbo's) which any enthusiast magazine or driver will attest to. Turbo's are an expensive maintenance headache and for most people should be avoided. I must admit, Ford has made some lackluster V6's except for some that have been outsourced. Their current V6 used in the Lincoln LS (and new Jaguar) is nice, but lacks power for the time being. Audi has similar problems; only their turbo V6's perform well, for some reason. Ride and handling: Every magazine test I have seen always faults Volvo's in this area. If they handle well, they usually ride poorly. Volvo tends to put tires that are too low profile on their top performance models, which severely hurts ride characteristics. They just haven't had the engineering capability (which means financial resources) until now to get the results that BMW, Audi and Mercedes have. Ford and Volvo: Future Volvo's will share platforms with Ford products. With Ford's money and expertise, they should manage to develop some top notch products. The Lincoln LS for example, (which shares it's chassis with the new Jag) has ride and handling that is world class, something Volvo has never been able to achieve. |
|
|
bgkanne, You title your response "Volvo Facts and Fantasy" yet once again all you post is your opinion. This is your OPINION and should be taken as such. Not one FACT is presented. This is a free and open board, anyone is welcome to post. However coming in with your OPINION, trolling for a response is ruining your credibility. 1. Safety: Some ad Volvo did 10 years ago in your mind apparently means it is a less safe car. Hardly a convincing argument. Show me the data!! 2. V6 VS Straight 6: Why is it dumb to put a straight six in a FWD car? It is a superior design over a V6 because you don't need to rely on balance shafts and counter weights to make it smooth. You are correct in your assesment of the BMW I6 I have one in my Z3 and it is a pleasure to open up. This however is not a 6 cylinder conversation. All the V70's are built around a bullet-proof 5 cylinder turbo motor. Your OPINION of turbo's being a "maintenance headache" is just that. You have no data to back it up. 3. Ride and handling: Edmunds new review of the V70 T5 states: "So, it's an attention-getter, a great handler, reasonably comfortable for four adults, and loaded with standard and optional amenities." Car and Driver July, 2000 V70 review states: "I can't recall any Volvo, or any sedan or wagon for that matter, coming so close to matching the exemplary ride of a BMW" and "the T5's chassis is responsive and stable, even when you are exploiting every bit of its formidable capabilities. With an excellent balance of acceleration, handling, and braking, you can cover ground very rapidly without much effort in the T5." and "the V70 T5 is easily the quickest station wagon you can buy short of the very rapid BMW 540i, which stickers just north of $56,000, more than 20 grand above the T5's $33,975 base price." Road and Track said of the previous V70 Cross Country: "On the highway, the Cross Country's stature and aggressive tread are hardly noticed, the XC having Volvo's typical Learjet-like combination of plushiness and precision." I could go on, but you get the point... 4. Future platforms: You got it backwards. It seems that Volvo will be sharing some of it's platforms with Ford. Rumor has it that the next generation of Taurus/Sable will be based on the Volvo S80 Platform. I repeat my questions from my original post which you still have never answered: I am curious to know what you think is the value leader in the Luxury sport wagon class? Have you ever driven a new or previous generation V70? Remember: Opinions are like as*# les, everyone's got one. You are entitled to your opinions even though the FACTS discredit them.
|
|
|
Regarding post #17: In addition to twoof1's excellent reply I thought I should add some information. The commercial you referred to was shot by an advertising agency that decided to fudge things supposedly for safety sake. They definitely should have put out a disclaimer with the ad but that fault was theirs. Volvo was at fault for using them. Your knowledge of Volvos is quite lacking. You are correct that death and injury stats are the real telling factor for a car's crash-worthiness. The most comprehensive study ever conducted was a 5-year study by the U.S. government concluded several years ago in the 90s. The government studied and tracked every model car on the road that was available for all 5 years. Guess who made the only car with a 0.0 death rate? Further, regarding safety, you should do some detailed reading. Mercedes and Audi build very compelling cars in their own right but neither has made top marks in any of the recent European or U.S. crash tests. The current and outgoing C-class scored 2 of 4 stars (vs. 4 stars for the Volvo S40 - the only one with 4 stars) along with the Audi A4 in Euro NCAP tests. The Mercedes E-class and Audi A6 scored above average marks but neither made top rankings. The BMW 5 series and 3 series have scored very well and have made top marks in a couple of tests. The marque you left out that actually is on the same level as Volvo in many respects is Saab (the 9-5 in particular). Volvo turbos are not a maintenance headache by any standard. In fact they have proven themselves to be extremely reliable in the FWD cars. These Mitsubishi units are very hearty and I've not read more than one failure in the past 6 years online as I recall. Your conjecture about inline 6 engines is poor. Volvo's entire line of 4,5,and 6 cylinder inline engines were developed with Porsche and they work very well for their platforms. The future of the inline 6 is very bright. In fact, GM recently announced they will be relying heavily upon them for their future production cars. Yes BMW makes some nice straight 6s but in general they are a bit underpowered for me and BMWs in particular don't mesh as well with their GM transmissions. I would rather have the Volvo inline 6 with a turbo (although the S80 2.9 and BMW 528 are quite comparable in engine response). Of course unlike you, I happen to think the best inline 6s come from Porsche and are in their cars. While you were correct about Volvo suspension setup at one time, you are simply off for current models. Early to mid 90s 850 turbos came with 50 series tires and since they were not regulated in the U.S.and would actually hit 150 they were setup for high-speed runs (much higher than we ever drive here) and did indeed have a harsh ride with decent handling characteristics. The current S70 is much better by comparison. Of course I shouldn't say current since it is now out of production and its replacement,the S60, is scheduled for introduction today. The S80 T6 rides very well and handles very well to boot. The new 2001 V70 T5 is an astounding handler for any car and the fact that it is a FWD wagon just makes it all more the more impressive. Ford has no stated desire to add Ford platforms to the Volvo lineup. They had negotiated the right to put the Volvo badge on a behemoth SUV (larger than the Excursion) when they acquired Volvo Cars but that plan has now been scrapped. The 2004 Taurus was to be built on the current S80 platform but Ford has reportedly run into problem trying to figure out how to make the platform cheaply enough for the Taurus so it may be off. Regardless, Volvo is still setting new sales records and with the recent introduction of the new V70, Cross Country, and S60, they will continue to do so. Unless their numbers start falling you can continue to look for a hands-off approach from Ford as regards Volvo. Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you don't like Volvo's that's fine but don't try to offer something as fact without a reference please. I realize from your profile that you are looking for a Saturn so I would guess that you aren't looking at new Volvos. However, if only for the sake of a better information exchange, I would highly encourage you to take a new Volvo or two for a test drive if you can spare the time and then give us your more informed opinion. Thanks. -rdo russell.ollie usa.net
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent post, but one minor correction: Porsche has never used an inline 6 cylinder of their own. The Porsche 6 is a horizontally opposed unit. bgkanne- An inline 6 is superior in every respect to a V-6 except in one area...space requirements. An inline six produces more torque and is more naturally balanced than any V-6 could ever hope to be. Volvo's on the right track with the inline 6. Heck, Even lowly GM is seeing the light and producing an all-new inline six for its SUVs. I wouldn't worry too much about Ford "ruining" Volvo. They've pretty much let Jaguar continue on its course, as well as Aston Martin. In fact, I see this as a good thing. Volvo now has significant capital for new designs, and everyday Ford cars will, in a few years, be much safer-- even if platforms are not shared, IO'm sure safety features will be. |
|
|
Edmund's has a test of a 2001 Volvo T5 wagon which anyone can read. The car has an inline 5 cylinder turbo. No one is currently using an inline 6 cylinder in a front wheel drive car. It creates too many packaging problems when mounted sideways. It's fine in a car with the engine mounted north/south. The car tested listed for over 44K. Obviously with less equipment it would be around 40K, which puts just BMW, Mercedes and Audi with more expensive wagons. Here are just SOME of the problems Edmund's found with this car: Engine: Turbo lag, stumbles off of line, lethargic with higher outside temperatures, no power until 3000 rpm. Lousy 18.1 mpg average. May perform better with manual trans, but isn't available in US. Steering: lacks feel, torque steer Brakes: Pedal sinks, inconsistent response Ride: No comparison to a BMW Interior: Odd Swedish leather odor (better to get cloth interior). Badly positioned power seat controls, flawed GPS system ($2500!), cramped rear seat only suitable for children, cheap interior materials and numerous squeaks, creaks and rattles (totally inexcusable). In summary, the person who wrote the article felt the his reason to buy the car was it's safety features, which he admitted is his personal bias. He recommended the superior and far less expensive Volkswagen Passat GLX 4 motion. If BMW, Mercedes, Audi or Volkswagen made a POS like this, heads would roll. Virtually every major area of this car, besides safety, has serious flaws. And at the price Volvo is asking, the car looks even more ridiculous. The reason is Volvo's lack of engineering breadth and lack of money for product development. Until now, safety was the only area Volvo obsessed on. This should change with Ford's ownership. Anyone who buys a car like this has got a very strange decision making process and must be obsessed with Volvo's safety image. Sorry to burst the Volvo bubble. The above FACTS speak for themselves. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Wagons Volvo V70 Volvo V70 Wagon Experience
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Volvo V70
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
