Last post on Jul 19, 2010 at 5:36 AM
You are in the Volvo V70
What is this discussion about?
Volvo XC70, Volvo V70, Future Vehicle, Wagon
#7 of 98 Re: New V70 "over a foot shorter"? [blckislandguy]
Aug 16, 2007 (4:30 am)
40k?! I knew I didn't have the money to retire when I did! We paid $27K (plus ~$2k TTL) for a base model 2004 V70 with 5spd auto and a roof rack added by the dealer. We paid $34K (plus ~$2k TTL) for a base model 2007 XC90 3.2.
I guess Volvo decided to shift to a smaller wagon on the order of of a VW Passat wagon or a Subaru Legacy/Outback. Maybe they have it figured right. We intended to use the '04V70 as all purpose, but now for camping and travelling with 3 dogs we use the XC90 even though the XC90 is using ~35% more fuel per highway mile. If both vehicles are "clean" (i.e. no roof box, canoe, trailer, etc.) then the V70 gets over 34 mpg on the interstate at 65 mph, but I don't expect more than 24mpg (and may get only 22) with the XC90. So the XC90 will use at least 40% more fuel per mile than the V70. Maybe if I slow down to 60 mph, ugh!
But the 08V70 will use the same 3.2L I6 as in the XC90. I wonder how much the hwy fuel use will increase. The NA 2.4L 5cyl is very fuel efficent.
#8 of 98 Re: New V70 "over a foot shorter"? [jim314]
Aug 16, 2007 (6:11 am)
The XC90 will use at least 40% more fuel per mile than the V70, and maybe more like 60% more.
I recently got 34.7 mpg with the normally aspirated 2.4L V70 clean and lightly loaded on over 700 miles of IH at about 65 mph. 34.7 mpg => 0.02882 gpm. If I get 22 mpg (=> 0.04545 gpm) with the XC90, this is 58% more fuel required to go the same distance.
Of course, when we get to rough roads at our camping destination then the higher ground clearance of the XC90 is useful (and why we bought it). And it can carry more gear without a roof box, hitch box, or trailer.
#9 of 98 Re: New V70 "over a foot shorter"? [jim314]
Aug 16, 2007 (6:40 pm)
Jim, I confess to MIGO (my eyes glaze over) on this GPM stuff. But, please compare apples to apples. The 40K figure is for a reasonably up optioned AWD XC70. In my humble opinion it will be far more useful and with the leather far more comfortable than a stripped V70 unless you live in the rural SW where two wheel drive is OK. The XC also has great ground clearance and should be able to do all the things an XC90 can do with more ease and for far less money.
#10 of 98 Re: New V70 "over a foot shorter"? [blckislandguy]
Aug 17, 2007 (5:16 am)
I agree that the XC70 is a much better all-purpose vehicle than the V70. There is enough ground clearance for most rough roads, and a floor low enough for dog ingress and egress without needing a ramp or other device. Fuel consumption is lower than an XC90. The fact is that to meet our needs we decided to get an XC90 too. Combined cost of the two vehicles was $65k. Ouch!
Base model V70s are not too common on dealers' lots in Dallas TX, and perhaps (speculation only) we got a good deal on the base 04V70 because they are not in demand here. But then why would it be on the lot? In Sept or Oct of 2003, the nearby dealer had two, both white with AT as the only option, one with graphite cloth and the other with light taupe, and neither had been test driven. My wife got the graphite so as not to show soiling by our dogs, which proved to be a good choice. Our vehicles get hard use.
Right after Katrina, I transported an elderly relative with a broken hip (evacuated from a nursing home New Orleans) from south Louisiana to Kansas in the front passenger seat of the V70. I removed the right rear seat bottom to allow full reclining of the front passenger seat and he was acceptably comfortable, though it wasn't perfect. The leg with the broken hip was restricted a little due to interference with with the lower dash.
He was in a diaper and I thought I had an impermeable barrier under that, but after arriving at the destination west of Topeka, I realized that the seat was soaked with urine. I slept in the V70 that night at a COE campground and had to have the windows open to reduce the smell. When I got home I cleaned the seat with upholstry cleaner and through rinsing and drying with a shop vac and fans. There was no residual smell. I'm not sure that leather would have been cleanable by me.
I agree that the V70 base cloth seats are not as comfortable as the leather, but I think it is the underlying structure of the base seats rather than the cover. The base cloth seats in the XC90 are much more supportive than those in the V70. Of course, the seating position in the XC90 is more erect which is more comfortable for trips, but I don't think SUV/minivan erect seating would fit in the V70 or XC70.
#11 of 98 Re: New V70 "over a foot shorter"? [jim314]
Aug 20, 2007 (5:13 pm)
Jim, you're one of the good guys. When someone needs help, you step in.
I am surprised though that you think that cloth seats clean up better and more easily than leather.
I agree that upright seating is far more preferable on a weekend trip. I guess that is one more reason why I shouldn't buy a 911! I left New Brunswick in the Atlantic Maritimes very early this AM in my Cayenne. With an upright seating position and 63 year old bones, it wasn't a bad trip. I was at work by 9:00 AM. I don't think I could have done the same 7 hours in a 911 as easily. Believe it or not, I think my wife's XC70 would have been more comfortable than either Porsche.
#12 of 98 Re: New V70 "over a foot shorter"? [jim314]
Aug 20, 2007 (5:59 pm)
"the XC70 is a much better all-purpose vehicle than the V70."
I'll play devil's advocate here and disagree with this statement.
It seems to me that, for the vast majority of drivers, the added weight (400 lbs), 4 1/2" wider turning circle, lower fuel economy (4 MPG hwy), and reduced ride comfort are not worth suffering 90% of the time just so you can go a little farther off-road than the regular wagon twice a year.
In fact, if you really must do serious off-road driving, why not take the $6,500.00 you save buying a 2.4L V70 and buy a 2001 Ford Explorer? You get a vehicle with proper off-road credentials and you spare subjecting your $37,000 luxury wagon to the brutalities of the beaten path.
Sorry, but I think the XC70 is an unfortunately compromised touring wagon and off-road vehicle - it doesn't excel at either.
#13 of 98 Re: New V70 "over a foot shorter"? [fedlawman]
Aug 21, 2007 (10:19 am)
You can extend this concept to the XC90 as well. With the exception of 7 seats, the XC90 does little more than the XC70 which does little more than the V70. When I looked at the XC90 last year I found very little functional difference over my V70 - for the 95+% of the time you are driving it. I think the biggest benefit of the XC70 over the V70 is ground clearance - which makes it more useable in rural, gravel, and snow belts. I think it is all marketing and image.
#14 of 98 Re: New V70 "over a foot shorter"? [stmss]
Aug 21, 2007 (10:50 am)
Yup, you're right.
I think this whole AWD craze that is going on right now is nothing more than a fleecing of the American public to increase profits.
#15 of 98 Re: New V70 "over a foot shorter"? [stmss]
Aug 21, 2007 (3:11 pm)
The progression of V70 to XC70 to XC90 will have some people saying that each step provides a negligible change for their needs. But others may need or find useful the increased functionality.
I put a trailer hitch on our 2004 V70, intending it to be an all purpose vehicle. For long vacation camping trips I intended to tow an aerodynamic sport trailer of 40 to 80 cu ft, but this planned for "trip of a lifetime" has yet to take place, and I have yet to buy the sport trailer. I have done some hauling of landscape and garden supplies with a utility trailer.
For the shorter trips we have taken, an 18 cu ft Thule roof box has sufficed, and gave 28 mpg at 60 mph on backroads.
But I recently had to turn around in the V70 on a gravel road which was scraping the bottom. I'm sure that an XC70 would have handled that road.
Recently my wife and I took a long trip in the XC90 with our 3 dogs--mostly as house-guests of relatives and some camping. The XC90 carried a lot more gear inside than the V70 or the XC70 could have done and was a lot more comfortable on the road. Of course, the fuel consumption was about 22 mpg so fuel consumption was ~25% higher than the V70 with a roofbox.
I like the fact that the rear side windows in the XC90 retract fully into the door. We let our two larger dogs (65-lb border collie and lanky 35- lb mutt) have heads outside the window when the road and the traffic allows it (tethered with canine auto restraints), and I don't like the fact that in the V70 they could get hit under the chin by the edge of the window if I would hit an unexpected bump.
#16 of 98 Re: New V70 "over a foot shorter"? [fedlawman]
Aug 21, 2007 (4:51 pm)
Fedlawman, nice post. Let me extend it some. Probably with a good set of winter tires like Blizzaks or better, a V70 or even a V70 T5 would be all you would need for a suburban commuter whose route was a 1/2 mile jaunt to get out of his subdivision and then onto a well plowed/sanded Interstate.
On the other hand if you live north of the GW Washington Bridge ( all of New England, upstate NY), a XC70 is handy 4-5 months a year, especially if you live in a non-metro area. The rubber cladding may look phony but it does offer increased protection.
Now, lets not pick on the XC70 crowd. How about the people who spend 67K for a Bimmer 5 Series AWD wagon? Thats truly nutty.