Article Comments - 2007 Hardtop Convertible Comparison Test: 2006 Volvo C70

30 messages, Last post on Jun 15, 2007 at 1:35 PM

You are in the Volvo C70 Forum. Your Host is claires

What is this discussion about? Volvo C70, BMW 3 Series, Convertible

Article comments for 2007 Hardtop Convertible Comparison Test: 2006 Volvo C70 vs. 2007 BMW 328i - Both the BMW and the Volvo match stylish retractable hardtops with silky-smooth inline engines. Once you see these magically complex hardtops fold away, you can't help but admire the sheer engineering artistry of the performance. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 3 of 3: 1; 2; 3; Prev; Next; Last

#21 of 30 Side curtain airbags in C70 by autoedu Jun 05, 2007 (10:00 am)
Not to mention Volvo C70 is the only convertible that offers side curtain airbag. Talking about advanced safety technology that can save life. As safe as Volvo is I believe Saab is even safer than Volvo. Replies to this message: rschleicher (Jun 05, 2007 12:57 pm)
#22 of 30 Re: Side curtain airbags in C70 [autoedu] by rschleicher Jun 05, 2007 (12:57 pm)
Replying to: autoedu (Jun 05, 2007 10:00 am) I just saw an article about new crash safety test results that just came out for convertibles. (I forget who issued them, whether it was a govt. agency, or some insurance industry group.) The C70 and the Saab 9-3 were the only two convertibles that had the highest-level (i.e., highest possible) rating for all three directions of crash - front, side, and rear. (I think there are basically four ratings levels for each direction - they don't try to get any more precise than simply stating which of the four levels apply to each direction.) A couple of others had the same highest-level rating for front and side, but were lower for a rear crash. (I think that the VW Eos might have been in this group.) I am forgetting the other details, but I also seem to think that the new BMW 3-series convertible had the highest-level rating for just a front crash, and somewhat lower ratings for both side and rear. The car brands that don't do that well always try to say that they "believe their cars are very safe in real-world conditions". Volvo has also said things like this, and have argued that straight-on front and side crashes are not that realistic, and that an "offset" crash on a front corner is more realistic. That said, it is still good to know that the C70 came out very well in the standard crash tests. The safety emphasis is not just hype. To be fair, almost any modern convertible is far safer than they were 10 or more years ago. On the opposite end of the safety spectrum, my '59 Corvette should probably be viewed as a rolling death-trap, what with 4-wheel drum brakes (no power boost), nothing but simple lab belts, and a fiberglass body that would shatter into lots of itty-bitty pieces on impact. (Crush zone, smush zone...)
#23 of 30 328i rear wheel drive vs volvo c70 by brie121 Jun 07, 2007 (9:27 am)
As of right now I am looking at the 328i hard top but the only problem is that it is rear wheel drive and I live in Chicago, and with all the snow and ice we get is it a bad choice to buy the 328i over the front wheel drive C70? The BMW dealer said that it would be fine, but does he just want to sell me the car? The 328i is NOT the sport it has all wheel tires and 3 forms of traction control... I neep help and need it fast!!! Thanks!!!< Replies to this message: qbrozen (Jun 07, 2007 11:30 am) laurasdada (Jun 07, 2007 5:39 pm) qbrozen (Jun 08, 2007 4:49 am) and 1 more...
#24 of 30 Re: 328i rear wheel drive vs volvo c70 [brie121] by qbrozen Jun 07, 2007 (11:30 am)
Replying to: brie121 (Jun 07, 2007 9:27 am) You will most likely need snow tires in the winter with the bimmer. If you WANT the bimmer, then you should just pony up to swap the tires every snow season (or get a separate set of cheapo rims with snow tires premounted and you can swap them yourself). If you find yourself in a tough choice between the 2 cars, I think not needing to swap the tires all the time might lean you towards the volvo. Regardless of the traction control nannies, I still wouldn't be in more than an inch of snow or on any kind of ice with RWD and without snow tires. why take the chance? on the other hand, I have never had any sort of problem with FWD and good all-season tires in any weather conditions. Replies to this message: laurasdada (Jun 07, 2007 5:39 pm) qbrozen (Jun 08, 2007 4:49 am) rschleicher (Jun 08, 2007 8:51 am)
#25 of 30 Re: 328i rear wheel drive vs volvo c70 [qbrozen] by laurasdada Jun 07, 2007 (5:39 pm)
Replying to: qbrozen (Jun 07, 2007 11:30 am) I agree. And please note: without any traction, 3 kinds of traction control will not really help much! If you go RWD, get snows. FWD, good all seasons should do a vast majority of the time (within reason). At least Chicagoland is fairly flat... I've always driven FWD w/all seasons in New England. Always gotten there. Unfortunately my current all season tires are more like 3 seasons. Worst. All Season. Ever. In Snow. Will replace this fall: Kumho Ecsta ASX, Pirelli PZero Nero M&S, Continental ContieExtremeContacts or Bridgestone Pole Postions...??? Replies to this message: qbrozen (Jun 08, 2007 4:49 am) rschleicher (Jun 08, 2007 8:51 am)
#26 of 30 Re: 328i rear wheel drive vs volvo c70 [laurasdada] by qbrozen Jun 08, 2007 (4:49 am)
Replying to: laurasdada (Jun 07, 2007 5:39 pm) FYI. the contiextremes I put on my s70 were the best tires I've ever had in all weather conditions. Replies to this message: rschleicher (Jun 08, 2007 8:51 am)
#27 of 30 Re: 328i rear wheel drive vs volvo c70 [qbrozen] by rschleicher Jun 08, 2007 (8:51 am)
Replying to: qbrozen (Jun 08, 2007 4:49 am) My C70 came with the 18 in. wheels and the P-Zero Rosso tires, which are supposedly very poor in the cold and snow, being a summer high performance tire. I live in CA, and would probably always be in another vehicle when heading up to the Sierra in winter, so this isn't really a problem. But when it comes time to replace these tires, I think I will go for an all-season tire, if for no other reason than to get better wear out of them. (I am guessing that I'll get no more than 20k miles out of the Rosso's, if that much.) I was initially thinking along the lines of the P-Zero Nero M+S, but the list of some other alternatives above seems like a good list. (I hadn't really wanted the 18" wheels and summer tires option, but basically got it for free. And I do like the look of the bigger wheels and lower-profile tires.) As an aside, I lived in the Chicago area for 30 years, and always found that regular M+S tires on a FWD car was perfectly adequate. With rear drive, I think I'd be more inclined to put on true winter tires.
#28 of 30 Saab is safer than Volvo by autoedu Jun 15, 2007 (12:01 am)
Saab is safter than Volvo. In the side impact test I think Volvo got a little help with being a hardtop. Even with a soft top Saab earn the highest rating for safety in all categories. Replies to this message: rschleicher (Jun 15, 2007 1:35 pm)
#29 of 30 Re: Saab is safer than Volvo [autoedu] by rschleicher Jun 15, 2007 (1:35 pm)
Replying to: autoedu (Jun 15, 2007 12:01 am) The hard-tops of the C70 and other cars with retractable hard-tops offer essentially no extra safety protection, given that they are only held together, and held on to the main car structure, by relatively flimsy frameworks that are not much different from a soft-top mechanism. Not to mention that safety testing of convertibles must assume that the top may be down. So the C70's roof gave it no inherent safety advantage over the Saab 9-3 soft-top. In any case, in the recent ratings that just came out for convertibles, both the 9-3 and the C70 got the highest rating for all three directions of "hits". The advantages of the hardtop that I see are basically in theft and break-in prevention (i.e., you can't simply slash the canvas top to get inside the car), possibly better noise isolation with the top up (although many soft-tops are pretty good in this regard), same possible advantage in heat and cold insulation, and looks (which are subjective). The downside is a little bit of weight increase over a comparable soft-top, although this is actually surprsingly low. Most of the weight increase of a convertible over its coupe or sedan equivalent is for things like chassis stiffening, and therefore applies to either kind of top. (As an aside, the new Chrysler Sebring convertible comes with three choices of tops - a basic vinyl top, a more upscale canvas top (presumably with better insulation), and a retractable hard-top. It would be interesting to see what the weight differences are between these three choices. (Although there may be other equipage differences that make this a little tricky to calculate.)