Ok, How About An XC-70?

You know I was looking at the V-50's when my dealer said he has two
2004 XC-70's that are new and he'll knock about $8,000 off of the
sticker.
These are nice rides. What would I expect as far as gas mileage and
realiability on this model year? He also has a nice 2004 V-70 with the
turbo that is marked down
What do you think?
Thanks!
--Fred

In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) (Spambow) wrote:

> You know I was looking at the V-50's when my dealer said he has two
> 2004 XC-70's that are new and he'll knock about $8,000 off of the
> sticker.
> These are nice rides. What would I expect as far as gas mileage and
> realiability on this model year? He also has a nice 2004 V-70 with the
> turbo that is marked down
> What do you think?
> Thanks!
> --Fred

Depends on what you are looking for. the V-50 is a handsome looking
car, but passenger room and cargo is smaller than the XC-70. 3 people
fit comfortably in the back seat of the V-70 model . That would be tight
in the V-50, Is the V-50 you're looking at AWD? Is AWD important to you?
That will lower the MPG.

(E-Mail Removed) (Spambow) wrote:

> My dealer said he has two 2004 XC-70's that are new and he'll knock
> about $8,000 off of the sticker. What would I expect as far as gas
> mileage and reliability on this model year?

Officially the '04 XC-70 gets EPA city/highway, 19/24 mpg. My '01 XC-70
gets 22-23 local and 25-27 highway. That is with no sunroof and just
the roof rack rails, no cross bars. I only use 87 octane fuel.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to (E-Mail Removed)
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html

"Stephen M. Henning" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<pighash-(E-Mail Removed)>...
> (E-Mail Removed) (Spambow) wrote:
>
> > My dealer said he has two 2004 XC-70's that are new and he'll knock
> > about $8,000 off of the sticker. What would I expect as far as gas
> > mileage and reliability on this model year?
>
> Officially the '04 XC-70 gets EPA city/highway, 19/24 mpg. My '01 XC-70
> gets 22-23 local and 25-27 highway. That is with no sunroof and just
> the roof rack rails, no cross bars. I only use 87 octane fuel.

That is pretty good mileage. Would you buy another Volvo after owning
this rig?I live in Kentucky, so we still see snow and I go back and
forth on the allwheel drive issue. I don't have a big family, but I
have become pretty used to the rear seat room of my Outback. Do the
front wheel drive Volvos do pretty well in snow and ice?
Thanks guys,
Fred

The front drive Volvo's do just fine up here in Southern Ontario, friends of
mine have a V70 2.4T with DSTC and it's good in all weather even with
all-season tires on it... I don't have much of a problem with our rear drive
960 when fitted with snow tires tho... It's how you drive more then how many
wheels are driven - an AWD will take longer to stop due to the extra weight.
"Spambow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> "Stephen M. Henning" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:<pighash-(E-Mail Removed)>...
>> (E-Mail Removed) (Spambow) wrote:
>>
>> > My dealer said he has two 2004 XC-70's that are new and he'll knock
>> > about $8,000 off of the sticker. What would I expect as far as gas
>> > mileage and reliability on this model year?
>>
>> Officially the '04 XC-70 gets EPA city/highway, 19/24 mpg. My '01 XC-70
>> gets 22-23 local and 25-27 highway. That is with no sunroof and just
>> the roof rack rails, no cross bars. I only use 87 octane fuel.
>
> That is pretty good mileage. Would you buy another Volvo after owning
> this rig?I live in Kentucky, so we still see snow and I go back and
> forth on the allwheel drive issue. I don't have a big family, but I
> have become pretty used to the rear seat room of my Outback. Do the
> front wheel drive Volvos do pretty well in snow and ice?
> Thanks guys,
> Fred

If you're after a 'real' Volvo get the V70, otherwise get a Mazda rather
than a V50. The Mazda is cheaper & uses the same platform as the V50.





"Spambow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> You know I was looking at the V-50's when my dealer said he has two
> 2004 XC-70's that are new and he'll knock about $8,000 off of the
> sticker.
> These are nice rides. What would I expect as far as gas mileage and
> realiability on this model year? He also has a nice 2004 V-70 with the
> turbo that is marked down
> What do you think?
> Thanks!
> --Fred

But then you have to have a weaker output Mazda engine (even the 2.3L is
less then the Volvo base engine), the Mazda 3 Sport doesn't have as much
cargo space, the interior is cheaper and it's a little ugly (the big tubes
you have to look in to see the gauges which aren't the greatest for clarity,
and the tacky looking radio which looks like something from a sci-fi
movie... I'm sure the LED's that move in/out with the volume will impress
the kids, but they're pointless). You also lose in safety... there are less
airbags, and just because its on the same platform doesn't mean you get
Volvo's slim engines designed not to push into the cabin in an accident, it
also means you lose out on Volvo's safety cage... you get Mazda's "Triple H"
design. The body styling is ugly, and the clear taillights don't look good
at all... the whole car is overstyled and ready to become dated in 3-4
years... That Volvo will look good for a lot longer. Mazda probably does
their own specs on the shocks and brake systems as well.... I have had good
experience with those two departments from Volvo, I wouldn't want another
company messing around with that.

The Mazda3 is a good value, if you're in the market to buy something like a
VW Golf or a loaded Honda Civic, it's a way better deal.

The Volvo's a totally different car, minus some shared frame technology.

The V70 is probably the better car tho, no doubt. But the nearly $10000
difference between the Mazda and the Volvo isn't there just because Volvo is
a more premium brand.
"Small Mammal" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:418db396$(E-Mail Removed)...
> If you're after a 'real' Volvo get the V70, otherwise get a Mazda rather
> than a V50. The Mazda is cheaper & uses the same platform as the V50.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Spambow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
>> You know I was looking at the V-50's when my dealer said he has two
>> 2004 XC-70's that are new and he'll knock about $8,000 off of the
>> sticker.
>> These are nice rides. What would I expect as far as gas mileage and
>> realiability on this model year? He also has a nice 2004 V-70 with the
>> turbo that is marked down
>> What do you think?
>> Thanks!
>> --Fred
>
>

(E-Mail Removed) (Spambow) wrote:

> That is pretty good mileage. Would you buy another Volvo after owning
> this rig?

Sure. The XC-70 is my 11th Volvo and the best yet.

> I live in Kentucky, so we still see snow and I go back and
> forth on the all-wheel drive issue. I don't have a big family, but I
> have become pretty used to the rear seat room of my Outback. Do the
> front wheel drive Volvos do pretty well in snow and ice?

Yes, the FWD Volvos do outstanding in snow and ice.

In 1990 I bought a Subaru Legacy because my job took me into the
Appalachian Mountains of Pennsylvania and I drove about 20,000 miles per
year. The Subaru handled the mountains in the winter just fine, but its
lack of reliability was becoming a problem. In 1995 I replaced the
Legacy with one of the first FWD Volvos, the 850 with TRACS (traction
control) and ABS. It was a good fit. It wasn't quite as good as the
AWD Subaru in deep snow, but did quite well. Also, it was running
strong after 180,000 miles when I sold it for 1/4 of what I paid for it.

The lack of reliability of the Subaru involved many things, the most
serious being that the body, frame, and brake system parts were rusting
out and the Legacy wouldn't pass state inspection as it was unsafe to
drive. The other specific Subaru Legacy problems were:

AC compressor failed and was replaced
Drivers door lock failed in locked position
Transmission/AWD failed and was replaced
Drivers sun visor wouldn't stay up and had to be replaced
Air shocks leaked and were replace with mechanical shocks
Tail gate rusted out and had to be replaced
Sun roof leaked and had to be sealed shut
Axle bearings wore out and had to be replaced.

In addition the Volvo was bigger, more powerful and got better gas
mileage.

A misconception: "Rob Guenther" wrote: an AWD will take longer to stop
due to the extra weight.

That doesn't agree with physics and isn't true. Friction is proportional
to the weight, mG. Hence, since deceleration is F/m and F is mGf, the
m's cancel and deceleration is independent of mass. Hence, the AWD
Volvos can be stopped just as fast as regular FWD Volvos and when using
engine braking, will stop twice as fast as FWD's.

(F=force, m=mass, G=acceleration of gravity, f=coefficient of friction)

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to (E-Mail Removed)
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html

"Small Mammal" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> If you're after a 'real' Volvo get the V70, otherwise get a Mazda rather
> than a V50. The Mazda is cheaper & uses the same platform as the V50.

The platform is not the car. It is just some steel pieces that hold the
car together. The suspension is different. The engine is different.
The handling is different. The rust proofing is different. The
drive-train is different. The whole car is different. The only thing
you can say is that the Mazda is cheaper. It certainly is.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to (E-Mail Removed)
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:33:01 +1100,
Small Mammal ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote:
> If you're after a 'real' Volvo get the V70, otherwise get a Mazda rather
> than a V50. The Mazda is cheaper & uses the same platform as the V50.

The Mazda3 does use the same platform as the V50. But apparently
you don't know what "platform" refers to. The V50 has a different
engine, drivetrain, suspension than the Mazda3. It has more airbags.

The cars handle very differently, and the inherent safety associated
with each is very different. Little wonder the Mazda3 is cheaper.

Beverly
--
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer