Last post on Aug 22, 2013 at 10:28 AM
You are in the Volvo S60
What is this discussion about?
Volvo S60, Volvo S60 R, Sedan
#2737 of 3081 Re: Volvo vs. Legacy [voxboy]
Dec 01, 2006 (11:11 am)
The widely held belief is because Volvo has spent decades and millions of dollars being the safety leader - and telling us that. The other manufacturers have finally caught up due to IIHS testing. IMHO, that's a good thing.
The Volvo S60 ranks Good for Frontal, Acceptable for Side and Good for rear impact/head restraint.
The Subaru Legacy ranks Good for Frontal, Good for Side, and Acceptable for rear impact/head restraint.
2 out 3 for both.
Don't forget, the Volvo was introduced in 2001 and designed to meet those standards. The Subaru was introduced in 2005 and designed to meet those standards - which they didn't on the side impact until they improved the side airbags.
A new S60 is coming out for 2008 - I'm guessing they'll ace all 3 tests the IIHS does. Additionally, Volvo has made stability control standard on the S60. AFAIK, it's not available on most Legacy models.
#2738 of 3081 Re: Volvo vs. Legacy [voxboy]
Dec 02, 2006 (9:08 am)
As has been mentioned, the S60 is an older design. One that was penned in the late 90's and it still exceeds the current standards.
The japanese are late comers to the idea of building cars that exceed the gov'ts standards. Too often they skimp on safety devices, whiplash protection for example, or make their safety features optional. Volvo does neither.
#2739 of 3081 Re: Volvo vs. Legacy [volvomax]
Dec 02, 2006 (7:37 pm)
Lets say a particular Japanese model is awarded the same IIHS "good" rating as the Volvo in rear impact crash tests. Are you saying that the Volvo still wins because their WHIPS technology takes it to a whole new level?
Maybe then I can justify moving forward with the S60 -- despite its modest side-impact rating. I just don't want to find out the hard way that the emperor has no clothes... you know what I mean?
#2740 of 3081 Re: Volvo vs. Legacy [voxboy]
Dec 06, 2006 (10:05 am)
Yes, NHTSA itself staes that the WHIPS system is good for an alomst 50% reduction in whiplash forces over a regular head restraint.
Volvo has decades of real world safety experience, unmatched by every other auto maker except possibly Mercedes.
#2741 of 3081 Re: Volvo vs. Legacy [voxboy]
Dec 06, 2006 (9:23 pm)
Hi Voxboy, I'm going to jump in here. I bought a 2006 S60 T5 (ex-service vehicle) this year, and a couple of months ago I got rear-ended. The head-rest was right there - my head hit the thing with a good thunk, but since there was so little - actually no space - between my head and the head-rest, I had no whiplash. By the way, WHIPS didn't engage - I wasn't hit that hard, but it is nice to know it's there.
Because I like its handling, I was about to buy the Audi A4 but the IIHS didn't like the models (rear impact-wise) until later in 2006 and I wanted to get something slightly used - read: cheaper.
I still feel vulnerable - a tad anyway - with S60's 'just ok' side impact ratings, and I don't know if Volvo has addressed this in the 2007 model. (Volvomax, you know anything about this?)
But I really read the IIHS and the Govt crash tests, and I reasoned that: Subaru Foresters didn't have Stability Control, Saabs have terrible reliability records, and it was more likely that I'd be rear-ended than side-impacted, so I bought the S60.
I like it - I have a few gripes - my right knee is too near the steering wheel shaft, the car makes no chirping sound when you lock it remotely, the true city mileage is around 19mpg, the T5 is bumpy and the turning radius is indeed pretty annoying...
But it's a very sturdy car, the T5 at least has a lot of power, it looks nice and damn, the seats are comfortable and good for tall people.
Hope this helps.
#2742 of 3081 Re: Is AWD worth it??? [voxboy]
Dec 07, 2006 (7:36 am)
There is virtually no torque steer -- or turbo lag -- on the low-pressure turbo. The high-pressure turbo is another matter altogether. After having one since Feb/02 and putting 57,000 miles on it based in the Rockies in Colorado we can report no problems whatsoever. AWD is more than about driving in the snow. It's about wet roads, gravel roads, cornering and more. If you find a sweet deal on a used one go for it.
#2743 of 3081 Re: Volvo vs. Legacy [confused7]
Dec 07, 2006 (7:46 am)
2007 model is unchanged. We just had a customer in an 05 get hit very hard in the side, totslled the car. No injury.
Conversely, a brand new 06 Subaru WRX was hit in the side right in front of our dealership. Driver was carried away on a stretcher to the hospital. You cannot always place full faith in tests. They don't always replicate what happens in the real world.
#2744 of 3081 Re: Volvo vs. Legacy [confused7]
Dec 07, 2006 (9:20 am)
Hi Confused, volvomax, philmo, etc. Thanks so much for your responses. I'm right there with you.
I pretty much resolved to get the S60 AWD with Dyanamic Stability, but decided to test drive the Legacy just to confirm my decision. Fyi, while I still find the '07 Legacy crash test results somewhat persuasive, it certainly doesn't feel like a safer car. It rides like a cheaper, insubstantial vehicle and I was surprised that it didn't instill much confidence. That may not be very scientific, but to echo volvomax's sentiments, I now believe more than ever that crash test results do not necessarily translate to real world conditions. And if that sounds like sour grapes, what supports that contention is the IIHS's "Injury, Collision and Theft loss" report which provides numerical ratings based on actual insurance claims filed over 2-3 years; despite the S60's modest side impact rating, the car has in fact proven supremely protective -- joining the ranks of the Passat, 9-3, and Quattro (recent awards not withstanding, the Legacys have resulted in about 25% more injuries).
So here I go -- plunging into the used S60 market. Do any of you guys have advice on things to look out for? How important is it to pay extra for a "certified" car, and would you ever buy from an ebay vendor? Any and all recommendations are welcome.
#2745 of 3081 Re: Volvo vs. Legacy [voxboy]
Dec 07, 2006 (10:20 am)
while I don't feel it needs to be certified, I'd personally want an extended warranty. Since a certified car comes with one, its probably easiest just to stick to certified.
It seems like you are looking for a recent model (let's say '04 and up?). If so, I can't think of anything in particluar you need to look for. Volvo seems to have the S60 pretty well ironed out by that year. Just be sure to try out several. Used cars, regardless of manufacturer, can vary greatly in the way they feel due to being abused by previous owners.
I don't want to start a war, and this really may vary by region, but I also feel the need to point out that Volvo dealers (at least here in NJ) typically overprice their used volvos. If that's the case in your area, don't get discouraged. It could take a while to find the right one for you, and remember that there is plenty of room to negotiate.
#2746 of 3081 Re: Volvo vs. Legacy [voxboy]
Dec 07, 2006 (11:50 am)
In terms of peace of mind, the certified car is the way to go. They can however cost quite a bit more than a private party or non Volvo dealer car.
Avg cost to certify a used Volvo, including the warranty is $3000. Plus, the dealer wants a profit.