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: fedlawman (Sep 23, 2008 4:50 pm) It is that or put solar panels on the XC70. I might be on to something here. 
|
|
|
Replying to: nibs (Sep 24, 2008 12:19 pm) On another note, while at the dealership today another gentleman was picking up his new XC70 that had 20 KMs on the odometer. He hadn't left the parking lot when he returned complaining about noise. Are these vehicles inspected at all before being sold to the comstomer? 
|
|
|
|
|
I've posted on other Edmunds Forums about the conundrum we have with my wife's 01 XC. When everything is right it is a stylish, fantastic all weather (we run up to Montreal regularly in it) highway tourer with very comfortable seating, lots of room, etc. But there were lots of problems with it and a not very attentive local dealer. Now at 95,000 somewhat eventful miles, we have started looking at the new '08s. Then we yawn. More money, more introductory first year problems, no big advances in fuel mileage, less luggage area (they expanded the second seat area), etc. Moreover, neither the car nor the dealerships are a luxuy experience. If you want that, you should buy an Audi Avant, BMW 5 Series or an E Series Wagon. However, you will wind up spending upwards of 20K more. But for what we want an AWD wagon for, the XC70 is ideal. However, after a lot of research, I think that the best deal by far is a gently used '06/'07 old style XC70. I'd welcome any comments especially if you think I am off base in my assessment.
|
|
|
Replying to: blckislandguy (Oct 19, 2008 5:41 pm) (1) engine: new naturally aspirated 3.2L inline-6; 235 hp and 236 lb-ft torque with no turbo hassles. My wife's 2007 XC90 3.2 FWD gets 24 - 26 mpg hwy. Driven carefully an XC70 3.2 might get 27 mpgUS hwy (32 mpgUK or 8.7 L/100km). (2) 6-spd auto stick tranny made by Aisin in Japan (3) turning radius much shorter than the old version -- 37.7 ft compared to: 39 ft? 40 ft? |
|
|
Replying to: jim314 (Oct 19, 2008 6:24 pm) And as far as what YOU may get in mileage, that does not mean everyone would. We can't get anywhere near the mileage in our XC90 that other folks report. Even with the cruise set at 45mph on flat ground, we JUST approach what others in other parts of the country claim they get at a steady 70mph. One person speculates this is due to the additives used in NJ gas. I would also add that your climate, elevation, asphalt material, etc, etc, change results, too. Anyway, my point is, yes, most likely a 4k lb XC70 is going to outmileage a 4700lb XC90 with the same drivetrain. However, since the EPA found that the 3.2 doesn't do quite as well as the 2.5T, I'd say that would hold true for owners, too. ALTHOUGH, if Volvo hadn't added 400lbs to the new model... who knows?
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Oct 20, 2008 1:17 pm) I doubt anyone will get 27 mpg from this car unless it is being towed.
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Oct 20, 2008 1:17 pm) But a inline 5-cyl engine is not as well balanced as an inline 6-cyl and Volvo does not use balance shafts in its I5-cyl engine as it did in its I4-cyl engines. The result is more vibration at idle with the 5-cyl compared to the silky smooth 3.2L inline 6-cyl. The inline 6-cyl is the gold standard for a relatively efficient smooth running engine. The I-6 configuration is common in Mercedes and BMW performance cars. Of course these are RWD. Volvo designed their I-6 (the short inline six or si6) to be short enought to fit transversely for FWD.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jim314 (Oct 20, 2008 2:51 pm) On the other hand the new engine has a six speed Japanese transmission (gee, thats a resounding vote for Volvo's in-house engineering), doesn't have a turbo, although Volvo turbos are not known for early failure, and if you run Mobil1 as you should anyway this will dissapate the added heat, and has a 1 foort shorter (hardly "much shorter") turning radius! The decision seems pretty clear to me. Since I have to be missing something, would someone more knowledgeable please enlighten me? Maybe the sterio is a vast improvement? The ride quality? They are closing the gap with the Germans and now have a heated steering wheel with paddle shifters? Come on, help me out. Afterall, you can pay almost the same price for a Porsche Cayenne and have more fun as you haul your brood to GrandMa's house. |
|
|
Replying to: blckislandguy (Oct 19, 2008 5:41 pm) In the past you would almost always come out ahead buying a used car. However, the car mfgrs are hurting and making great deals on vehicles in dealer stock. Your best value would be to hold onto your 01 XC70, unless you know it's not reliable, or know that it will soon cost a lot in maintenance or repairs. How do you determine if a vehicle has been 'gently used'. Some people make a big deal about how the 2.5L turbo makes high torque at lower rpms. A modern computer controlled turbo-charged engine can do this by cramming a lot of air and fuel into the cylinder even at low rpm, like 2000 rpm or even less. This of course increases the forces on the engine parts. What's wrong with having to wind out the engine to 4000+ rpm to get the highest torque? How often do you use the highest torque anyway? The 3.2L si6 has variable valve timing and variable lift height. Only time will tell whether the si6 will turn out to be low maintenance.
|
|
|
Replying to: jim314 (Oct 20, 2008 7:19 pm) Every time I put my foot to the floor and hit the peak RPMs. Which, in the volvo, is barely off idle. So I'd say VERY often. What's wrong with having to wind out the engine to 4000+ rpm to get the highest torque? Well, 2 things. 1 is that it takes longer to get there. 2 is that higher RPMs uses more fuel. Also, when peak torque is too high, it typically makes for a poor power curve. For instance, your torque peaks at 4k and HP peaks at 5500rpms. That gives you a "peakier" power curve than a vehicle with, say, 1800/5k, respectively. Not to say this is a hard and fast rule. I mean, there are some that might have 90% of torque off idle and just climb very slowly to their peak at 4k, for instance. To answer your other point. Yes, the I6 is inherently smoother. No argument there. But the I5 certainly isn't rough enough to make a difference to me. Can I feel it through the steering wheel at a stoplight if I close my eyes and focus? yeah. Does it bother me? nope. But that's personal preference. If someone is so focused on a smooth idle they want the I6, I'm not going to argue. That's their preference. |
|
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
