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 2008 Volvo XC70/V70
97 messages, Last post on Oct 17, 2009 at 6:40 PM
You are in the Volvo V70 Forum. Your Host is kcram
|
Replying to: jim314 (Oct 15, 2007 5:03 am) 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. |
|
|
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,......
|
|
|
Replying to: ricksv70 (Dec 31, 2007 7:15 pm) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: ricksv70 (Dec 31, 2007 7:15 pm) 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. |
|
I cant find any reference to a third seat in the 08. Thats a deal killer for us if that's the case.
|
|
|
Replying to: ageorge (Jan 06, 2008 7:11 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: ageorge (Jan 06, 2008 7:11 pm) 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. 
|
|
|
Replying to: jim314 (Jan 06, 2008 7:58 pm) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: fedlawman (Jan 06, 2008 9:37 pm) The occupants of a 3-row seat in a V70/XC70 are in the rear crumple zone. I have worked as an automobile crash researcher and I have spent many hours in automobile salvage yards. I remember once seeing a late 1990's or early 2000's model Volvo wagon which had been rear ended hard on the left side. The hatch was pushed almost to the second row seat on the left (driver's side). You can say that there is risk in life, etc., and so there is, but the use of the 3rd row seat puts the occupants there at assymetrical risk compared to other occupants of the vehicle and raises ethical problems. |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Volvo XC70
2010 Volvo V70
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
