Ask the Car People.SM


2008 Volvo XC70/V70

98 messages,  Last post on Jul 19, 2010 at 6:36 AM

You are in the Volvo V70 Forum.

What is this discussion about? Volvo XC70, Volvo V70, Future Vehicle, Wagon

Messages Page 4 of 11

#27 of 98 Re: 2008 Volvo XC 70 Test Drive [crestonave] by jim314

Oct 15, 2007 (6:03 am)

Replying to: crestonave (Oct 15, 2007 4:51 am)
I suppose this is powered by the naturally aspirated 3.2L inline-6, rated at 235 hp. This ought to be plenty powerful, but you'd expect it to be fairly fuel efficient. In short--a competent, practical premium 4WD wagon.
 
But the Edmunds site gives this data. This fuel use is disappointing to me. My 2004 V70 (base 168hp NA I5 5A) was rated at 22/30 mpg city/hwy. I get that and more on the highway and about that in the city.
 
"Fuel Tank Capacity: 18.5 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Automatic: : 15 mpg / 22 mpg
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
Automatic: 277.5 mi. / 407 mi."
 
This fuel use is about what we get in my wife's 2007 XC90 3.2 2WD.

#28 of 98 Re: 2008 Volvo XC 70 Test Drive [jim314] by jim314

Oct 15, 2007 (1:14 pm)

Replying to: jim314 (Oct 15, 2007 6:03 am)
The difference in the mpg values between my 04 V70 and the 08 XC70 is not as great as I claimed above because EPA changed the calculation procedure for the mpg figures.
 
2004 FWD V70 168hp I5 5A
New EPA MPG city/combined/hwy 19/22/28
Old EPA MPG city/combined/hwy: 22/25/30
 
The 08 XC70 uses 27% more fuel to go the same distance as the 04 V70 base model. The extra fuel goes into higher ground clearance, AWD, and an engine which is 40% more powerful and smoother running.

#29 of 98 08 V70 Test Drive by ricksv70

Dec 31, 2007 (8:15 pm)

I did it yesterday - finally drove the new V70. Here are my findings:
pros - extremely comfortable and upscale feeling (finally has a refined feel to it), looks like it was made well. The seats are amazing - better than in my 07 XC70. Standard stereo vastly improved over the HU-650.
 
cons - and this is a deal breaker - the engine is NOT prowerful. In fact I had to get back in my 07 with 2.5T for comparison and the turbo deffinately has more get up and go. The 08 sounded strained when pushed hard and acted leisurely when called upon. NO thanks, Volvo made a mistake with this engine (IMO). The T6 is much needed in this vehicle.
 
However when all is said and done the real issue is efficiency - the gas mileage figures seemed to have gone south on the 08's. Don't know if this is reflected by the new government reporting but the 08 V70/XC70 seem to be thirsty and that is NOT a good thing. My next car must get great mileage as we are all going to be in a hurting mess anyway when the economy tanks and fuel costs continue to surge.
My XC70 won't be worth crap by then.
 
Oh well,......

#30 of 98 Re: 08 V70 Test Drive [ricksv70] by jim314

Jan 01, 2008 (8:28 am)

Replying to: ricksv70 (Dec 31, 2007 8:15 pm)
According to the specs the 08 V70/XC70 should not be underpowered compared to your 07 XC70 2.5T. The naturally aspirated 3.2L I6 has a higher max hp rating (235 hp vs 208 hp) and the same max torque rating (236 ft*lb at 3200 rpm vs. 236 ft*lb at 1500 rpm for the 2.5T, according to Edmunds). The fact that the 2.5T makes its torque at a much lower rpm (according to the Edmunds specs) may make the 2.5T seem more powerful.
 
Of course, the 2008 XC70 is 400 lb heavier than the 2007 (4092 lb vs 3675 lb curb weights). The 08 has a slightly longer WB, but the Edmunds specs have it that the turning circle has been reduced to 37.7 ft from 43.3 ft in the 07! This is a terrific improvement.
 
The engine in the 2008 V70/XC70 and XC90 is the new Volvo designed/Ford manufactured naturally aspirated 3.2L inline 6. This is the so called "short inline six" so named because it is the same overall length as the Volvo I5. In the 3.2L I6 the positions of the serpentine belt driven accessories (water pump, a/c, p/s, etc.) have been moved from the usual position on the front of the engine to the side (alternator now driven by gears rather than a belt) and back (other accessories driven by a serpentine belt). The 3.2 has a timing chain, which might last the lifetime of the engine, rather than the timing belt in the Volvo 5-cyl engines.
 
My wife has an 07 XC90 3.2 2WD (curb wt 4400 lb, 400 lb more than the 08 XC70 ) and there is plenty of acceleration for her and me. I understand that eventually the I6 will be offered in one or maybe two turbocharged versions to produce about 300 hp and presumably a whiplash inducing torque curve for those who want it.
 
The EPA mileage figures (new version) for the 08 XC70 are 15/22 mpg, which are not great. In the old version of the EPA mpg ratings these would probably each be about 2 to 4 mpg higher. These are not as good as the mpg values in a Subaru Outback, but that is a smaller and lighter vehicle.
 
I drive a 2004 base model FWD V70 with the naturally aspirated 2.4L 5-cyl rated at 168 hp with the 5-speed auto, and this is plenty powerful enough for me. The curb wt is about 3400 lb. The 04 EPA ests for fuel economy were 22/30 mpg (old version, new version about 19/28 or so), and lightly loaded on the interstate more than once I have gotten over 34 mpg at close to 70 mpg in the summer by driving conservatively. However, the 04V70 has low ground clearance and is 2WD. A fairly heavy, AWD vehicle with over 8 inches of ground clearance is not going to get great fuel ecomomy on pavement. But my 04 V70 is not good on rough, potholed dirt and gravel roads. I have scraped the bottom more than once by try to take it on such roads.

#31 of 98 Re: 08 V70 Test Drive [ricksv70] by stmss

Jan 03, 2008 (12:23 pm)

Replying to: ricksv70 (Dec 31, 2007 8:15 pm)
I am looking at this car as well but have not driven yet. Won't be in the market until spring/summer or until Canadian prices come more in line with US. They are already starting the incentives on most Volvos.
 
I any case, I think Volvo made a mistake in not putting a turbo in this car. Despite the specifications, the turbo engines just feel faster and more responsive during everyday driving (passing, merging etc). I have owned both V70 turbo and Saab 9.5 turbo.
 
I will probably take one for a spin in the spring but may wait until 09 or buy used earlier model.

#32 of 98 3rd seat by ageorge

Jan 06, 2008 (8:11 pm)

I cant find any reference to a third seat in the 08. Thats a deal killer for us if that's the case.

#33 of 98 Re: 3rd seat [ageorge] by jim314

Jan 06, 2008 (8:58 pm)

Replying to: ageorge (Jan 06, 2008 8:11 pm)
Who would you put in a rear-facing 3rd row seat of a V70/XC70? These cramped seats are not as safe as the regular seats in a rear end collision. If you need three rows, get an XC90 or another large midsize or fullsize SUV or a large minivan.

#35 of 98 Re: 3rd seat [ageorge] by fedlawman

Jan 06, 2008 (10:00 pm)

Replying to: ageorge (Jan 06, 2008 8:11 pm)
I'm not sure if the 2008 has the 3rd row option, but I agree, it's great - it's a big reason why we chose the V70. It not only transforms the V70 into a 7 passenger car, but it's also great for securing groceries, shopping bags, etc. - preventing any soft-sided cargo from sliding/spilling.
 
I also love watching the reactions of drivers behind us when we are stopped at a light and the kids wave and/or make faces at them.

#36 of 98 Re: 3rd seat [jim314] by fedlawman

Jan 06, 2008 (10:37 pm)

Replying to: jim314 (Jan 06, 2008 8:58 pm)
"Who would you put in a rear-facing 3rd row seat of a V70/XC70?"
 
Uh, generally kids 12 and under fit fine - and depending on the relationship, maybe the mother-in-law.
 
"These cramped seats are not as safe as the regular seats in a rear end collision."
 
Red meat isn't as healthy as fish. So what?
 
"If you need three rows, get an XC90 or another large midsize or fullsize SUV or a large minivan."
 
Actually, the V70 is perfect for someone who doesn't need/want an XC90, SUV, or minivan.

Messages Page 4 of 11

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement