Advice on XC models please

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim Kelly
  • Start date Start date
J

Jim Kelly

My '94 850-T5 wagon is getting tired and I'm considering options for
a newer model. Main criteria is for a 'comfortable wagon (estate)'
with max load space (with back seats down). I tend to keep my
vehicles for a long time so reliability and longevity are very
important too.

The XC seems to fit the bill but I notice that all models have less
power (and mostly less torque) than my existing one. Although I am
not a hard driver, it seems disappointing to pay heaps and have less
power! Perhaps the modern gearboxes compensate (mine is a 4 speed
auto)?

Are there any gotchas that I should be looking for, or
models/engines to avoid.

The extra power of the 2.5L motor is attractive, but it seems to
only come with newer models. Is it worth spending more for this
motor? Are there other advantages in the model with this 2.5L motor?

Thanks in advance, and 'season's greetings',

Kind regards,

Jim Kelly.
 
Can the 2.4L motor be 'tweaked' to give it the power of the new 2.5L
motor, or are there substantial differences between the two?

Thanks,

Jim Kelly


message | My '94 850-T5 wagon is getting tired and I'm considering options
for
| a newer model. Main criteria is for a 'comfortable wagon (estate)'
| with max load space (with back seats down). I tend to keep my
| vehicles for a long time so reliability and longevity are very
| important too.
|
| The XC seems to fit the bill but I notice that all models have
less
| power (and mostly less torque) than my existing one. Although I am
| not a hard driver, it seems disappointing to pay heaps and have
less
| power! Perhaps the modern gearboxes compensate (mine is a 4 speed
| auto)?
|
| Are there any gotchas that I should be looking for, or
| models/engines to avoid.
|
| The extra power of the 2.5L motor is attractive, but it seems to
| only come with newer models. Is it worth spending more for this
| motor? Are there other advantages in the model with this 2.5L
motor?
|
| Thanks in advance, and 'season's greetings',
|
| Kind regards,
|
| Jim Kelly.
|
 
you may be hard pressed to beat the performance of your 850t
wagon...when moving into the newer volvos...a number of volvo folks i
chat with will swear by the 93-97 850t wagons for many
reasons...performance, handeling, etc...if you have under 500k miles
on it...you may want to consider keeping it and mod whatever you are
not satisified with...unless you are just "tired" of it...then look @
the new s70r's...they look sweeeeettttt.........imho...
 
Get the V70R model. 300hp, AWD.... should provide the performance (and then
some) of the T5 and the AWD traction you want!
 
Perhaps so!
My mechanic has alerted me to the fact that the resale value will
soon drop as it goes over 200,000km (125,000miles) and that repairs
may be immanent due to age and the turbo . .

The one thing that annoys me is the tailgate latch is worn and
allows the tailgate to move alot, with much rattling under some
conditions . . . apparently hard (or expensive?) to replace.

The suspension is too low for comfort (perhaps it has sagged?), but
may be there is a way to lift the rear end a bit to clear driveways,
etc? It is also very skittish on roads with loose surfaces (not
often encountered and letting pressure out definitely helps).

But if 500,000 miles (800,000kms is reasonable, let's get it
fixed!!)

Cheers all,

Jim Kelly.

| you may be hard pressed to beat the performance of your 850t
| wagon...when moving into the newer volvos...a number of volvo
folks i
| chat with will swear by the 93-97 850t wagons for many
| reasons...performance, handeling, etc...if you have under 500k
miles
| on it...you may want to consider keeping it and mod whatever you
are
| not satisified with...unless you are just "tired" of it...then
look @
| the new s70r's...they look sweeeeettttt.........imho...
 
you may be hard pressed to beat the performance of your 850t
wagon...when moving into the newer volvos...a number of volvo folks i
chat with will swear by the 93-97 850t wagons for many
reasons...performance, handeling, etc...if you have under 500k miles
on it...you may want to consider keeping it and mod whatever you are
not satisified with...unless you are just "tired" of it...then look @
the new s70r's
Click to expand...

The '93 had a bad automatic transmission. Bad year. By '94 the
transmission problem was solved. However a nagging problems with the
electrical system remained. Also, warped brake rotors were common.

The '98 S70/V70/C70 was basically a cosmetic uplift to the 850 model a
little more power, and safety. The electrical problems persisted.

The new '99 S80 is a larger more luxurious vehicle.

In 1999, AWD debuts in the S70, V70 and C70.

In 2000, the V70XC became the only AWD model.

The '01 S60 was Volvo's new sedan that took the place of the
discontinued S70 Sedan. Old problems are solved and no new ones appear.

The '01 S80 was an all new luxurious vehicle.

The '01 V70/V70XC shares its platform with the S80, Volvo's
top-of-the-line sedan. As a result, the new V70 is slightly shorter than
the 2000 model, but it has a longer wheelbase, wider front and rear
tracks, and about 2 more inches of width and height.
 
Thanks Steve . . a great summary!

Jim


| The '01 V70/V70XC shares its platform with the S80, Volvo's
| top-of-the-line sedan. As a result, the new V70 is slightly
shorter than
| the 2000 model, but it has a longer wheelbase, wider front and
rear
| tracks, and about 2 more inches of width and height.
|
| --
| Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to [email protected]
| Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
| Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '02 Volvos.
| The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '02 through European Delivery.
| http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html
 
Get the V70R model. 300hp, AWD.... should provide the performance (and then
some) of the T5 and the AWD traction you want!
Click to expand...
The one problem with earlier XCs (up to about 2002?) is the use of a
viscous coupling rather than Haldex four wheel drive, so all four
tyres have to be kept within a tight wear tolerance of each other or
the transmission gets damaged.
 
Conrad Edwards said:
The one problem with earlier XCs (up to about 2002?) is the use of a
viscous coupling rather than Haldex four wheel drive, so all four
tyres have to be kept within a tight wear tolerance of each other or
the transmission gets damaged.
Click to expand...

This is not a problem, but a characteristic. All Subarus and most other
makes used the same system. I have driven cars with this system since
1990. What happens is that if there is more tread in the front or
larger tire in the front than in the rear the transmission will surge,
that is a transfer of power from the front to the back in a pulsing
manner. The viscous AWD units are very sensative but this characteristic
is very noticeable. The solution is to rotate the tires. The pulsing
goes away when the tires are rotated. I never heard of anyone letting
it go to the point where it damaged anything, but that doesn't say it
can't or didn't happen. The transmissions may have had some other issue
that permitted this to end up as a problem.

It doesn't happen very often. It took my dealer several weeks to figure
it out on my '90 Subaru. It is an insidioius characteristic since it is
"normal" to always put the best tires in the front since that is where
most wear occurs on AWD cars. However, you have to rotate tires
frequently so that there is not much of a diameter difference. I have
the dealer rotate my Pirelli Scorpions if appropriate every time I go in
for 10,000 mile service and I never see this characteristic on my '01
XC. The Scorpions wear fairly evenly, front and rear.
 
Steve (and others),

Since you own a '2001' xc I wonder if you can clarify the
differences around that era (I suspect that there is confusion as
Volvo may have released new versions at different times around the
world leading to apparently miss-information in reviews/opinions
etc).

Did all of the new 'good' things happen at once as the model changed
from the 'old 850' shape to the 'new' shape with the bulging hips
and the 'frown' look in the side doors?
eg Haldex AWD, 244T3 2.4L motor, 5 speed auto with 'manual'
override.

Another way of putting it: if we avoid the 'old shape' are there any
early models to avoid if we want the features and reliability of the
current xc70 (except the 2.5L motor which is only in the last year
or so). As far as I can tell, little has changed in the
2002>2003>2004 transitions, but did this extend right back to the
beginning of the new shape?

Cheers,

Jim Kelly.


|
| > The one problem with earlier XCs (up to about 2002?) is the use
of a
| > viscous coupling rather than Haldex four wheel drive, so all
four
| > tyres have to be kept within a tight wear tolerance of each
other or
| > the transmission gets damaged.
|
| This is not a problem, but a characteristic. All Subarus and most
other
| makes used the same system. I have driven cars with this system
since
| 1990. What happens is that if there is more tread in the front or
| larger tire in the front than in the rear the transmission will
surge,
| that is a transfer of power from the front to the back in a
pulsing
| manner. The viscous AWD units are very sensative but this
characteristic
| is very noticeable. The solution is to rotate the tires. The
pulsing
| goes away when the tires are rotated. I never heard of anyone
letting
| it go to the point where it damaged anything, but that doesn't say
it
| can't or didn't happen. The transmissions may have had some other
issue
| that permitted this to end up as a problem.
|
| It doesn't happen very often. It took my dealer several weeks to
figure
| it out on my '90 Subaru. It is an insidioius characteristic since
it is
| "normal" to always put the best tires in the front since that is
where
| most wear occurs on AWD cars. However, you have to rotate tires
| frequently so that there is not much of a diameter difference. I
have
| the dealer rotate my Pirelli Scorpions if appropriate every time I
go in
| for 10,000 mile service and I never see this characteristic on my
'01
| XC. The Scorpions wear fairly evenly, front and rear.
|
| --
| Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to [email protected]
| Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
| Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '02 Volvos.
| The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '02 through European Delivery.
| http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html
 
Jim Kelly said:
Did all of the new 'good' things happen at once as the model changed
from the 'old 850' shape to the 'new' shape with the bulging hips
and the 'frown' look in the side doors?
eg Haldex AWD, 244T3 2.4L motor, 5 speed auto with 'manual'
override.
Click to expand...

NO. The change from 850 to V70 was cosmetic mostly but did resolve the
brake problems.

The 2001 V70 was a major redisign on the S80 platform and resolved the
electrical problems that had persisted from '93. It had the 'geartronic
transmission' available as an option. That is your 5 speed auto/manual.

The 2002 V70 T5 AWD got Dynamic Stability and Traction Control (DSTC)
which included the Haldex system.

All 2003 V70 AWDs got the Haldex.

All my experience is with the USA versions. The engines depend upon
your country.
Another way of putting it: if we avoid the 'old shape' are there any
early models to avoid if we want the features and reliability of the
current xc70 (except the 2.5L motor which is only in the last year
or so). As far as I can tell, little has changed in the
2002>2003>2004 transitions, but did this extend right back to the
beginning of the new shape?
Click to expand...
 
Yep, just found out . . . looked at a '2001' "v70 xc awd" model
(with build date June 2000 grrr!!) new shape but non geartronix
(Japanese) gearbox, still missing 2nd gear (I hate that in my
850-T5 - having to ride the brakes coming down hills stinks). Manual
seats, boring single-cd audio unit (still standard I believe).
Couldn't find any reason to move from my 850-T5!!

Steve, your notes below seem to relate to the v70. Do they apply to
the XC too? Maybe I should be looking at the non XC too?

Over and out for a few days.

Happy Christmas all.

Jim



| NO. The change from 850 to V70 was cosmetic mostly but did
resolve the
| brake problems.
|
| The 2001 V70 was a major redisign on the S80 platform and resolved
the
| electrical problems that had persisted from '93. It had the
'geartronic
| transmission' available as an option. That is your 5 speed
auto/manual.
|
| The 2002 V70 T5 AWD got Dynamic Stability and Traction Control
(DSTC)
| which included the Haldex system.
|
| All 2003 V70 AWDs got the Haldex.
|
| All my experience is with the USA versions. The engines depend
upon
| your country.
|
| > Another way of putting it: if we avoid the 'old shape' are there
any
| > early models to avoid if we want the features and reliability of
the
| > current xc70 (except the 2.5L motor which is only in the last
year
| > or so). As far as I can tell, little has changed in the
| > 2002>2003>2004 transitions, but did this extend right back to
the
| > beginning of the new shape?
|
| --
| Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to [email protected]
| Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
| Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '02 Volvos.
| The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '02 through European Delivery.
| http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html
 
Jim Kelly said:
Steve, your notes below seem to relate to the v70. Do they apply to
the XC too? Maybe I should be looking at the non XC too?
Click to expand...

Yes the V70 XC. I just saw a 2003 V90 XC and it had geartronic, DSTC,
and haldex.
 
Sorry Stephen, but the 2001 V70 is based on the S60 chassis not the S80.

Cheers, Peter.


<snipped>

: The 2001 V70 was a major redisign on the S80 platform and resolved the
: electrical problems that had persisted from '93. It had the 'geartronic
: transmission' available as an option. That is your 5 speed auto/manual.

<snipped>
 
Peter Milnes said:
Sorry Stephen, but the 2001 V70 is based on the S60 chassis not the S80.
Click to expand...

That is not what Edmunds, Kelley, and Volvo say. Also check:

http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/01v70.htm
"The new 2001 Volvo V70 wagon uses the exterior styling, platform and
suspension of the S80 sedan, but offers two turbocharged five cylinder
engines instead of the six cylinder engines offered in the S80."

....and: http://www.vvspy.com/spy/v70.php
"The [2001] V70 is build on the S80 platform ..."

....and: http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2045.shtml
"2001 Volvo V70 Cross Country ... now sports the broad-shouldered look
first seen on the S80 sedan. It also shares the S80's platform. A taller
ride height that gives the Cross country a substantial 8.2 inches of
ground clearance, distinguish the all-road Cross Country from its V70
wagon counterpart."

....and: http://www.stationwagon.com/sw_news/sw_news_2000.html
"The [2001] V70 wagon now rides on a slightly downsized S80 platform,
providing more refinement in the body shell and suspension."

However the S60 is also based on the S80 platorm:

http://www.diskdrive.co.za/newsstories/volvo_s60ab.html

"While the S60 is based on the S80 platform (albeit 280 mm shorter
overall and 75 mm shorter between axles) it also shares some elements
with the V70. For example, front track is the same as the wagon¹s while
rear track is as per the S80. Brakes and suspension are from the
flagship sedan. To all intents and purposes, Volvo has made three cars ­
S60, V70 and S80 ­ on the same platform but succeeded in giving each a
clear visual identity and completely different driving feel."
 
As you quoted Stephen "While the S60 is based on the S80 platform (albeit 280
mm shorter overall and 75 mm shorter between axles). This means that the S60
platform is dimensionally smaller than the S80 platform from which it is
derived. You also quote the similarities with the V70 of the S60 dimensions. The
V70 is the same width, wheelbase and height as the S60 as far as the main
passenger area is concerned. Volvo may say that the S60 and V70 are based on the
S80 chassis but anybody can tell that the S80 is quite a bit larger than the
other two. If you still do not believe me then go measure.

Cheers, Peter.

:
: > Sorry Stephen, but the 2001 V70 is based on the S60 chassis not the S80.
:
: That is not what Edmunds, Kelley, and Volvo say. Also check:
:
: http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/01v70.htm
: "The new 2001 Volvo V70 wagon uses the exterior styling, platform and
: suspension of the S80 sedan, but offers two turbocharged five cylinder
: engines instead of the six cylinder engines offered in the S80."
:
: ...and: http://www.vvspy.com/spy/v70.php
: "The [2001] V70 is build on the S80 platform ..."
:
: ...and: http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2045.shtml
: "2001 Volvo V70 Cross Country ... now sports the broad-shouldered look
: first seen on the S80 sedan. It also shares the S80's platform. A taller
: ride height that gives the Cross country a substantial 8.2 inches of
: ground clearance, distinguish the all-road Cross Country from its V70
: wagon counterpart."
:
: ...and: http://www.stationwagon.com/sw_news/sw_news_2000.html
: "The [2001] V70 wagon now rides on a slightly downsized S80 platform,
: providing more refinement in the body shell and suspension."
:
: However the S60 is also based on the S80 platorm:
:
: http://www.diskdrive.co.za/newsstories/volvo_s60ab.html
:
: "While the S60 is based on the S80 platform (albeit 280 mm shorter
: overall and 75 mm shorter between axles) it also shares some elements
: with the V70. For example, front track is the same as the wagon¹s while
: rear track is as per the S80. Brakes and suspension are from the
: flagship sedan. To all intents and purposes, Volvo has made three cars ­
: S60, V70 and S80 ­ on the same platform but succeeded in giving each a
: clear visual identity and completely different driving feel."
:
: --
: Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to [email protected]
: Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
: Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '02 Volvos.
: The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '02 through European Delivery.
: http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html
 
Peter Milnes said:
As you quoted Stephen "While the S60 is based on the S80 platform (albeit
280 mm shorter overall and 75 mm shorter between axles).
Click to expand...
(actually the current model of the S60 is 254.0 mm shorter overall and
has a 76.2 mm shorter wheelbase than the V70)
The V70 is the same width, wheelbase and height as the S60.
Click to expand...
(actually the current model of the V70 is 127.0 mm longer overall and
has a 50.8 mm longer wheelbase than the S60)
Volvo may say that the S60 and V70 are based on the S80 chassis but
anybody can tell that the S80 is quite a bit larger than the
other two. If you still do not believe me then go measure.
Click to expand...

I did using the official Volvo numbers and it is not so:

In overall length the V70 is midway between the S60 and S80. In
wheelbase, the V70 is closer to the S80 than the S60. In width, the V70
and S60 are the same. In height, the V70 is tallest.

The term chassis hasn't applied to Volvos for many years. Volvo uses
the term platform which is the design term used with unichassis
vehicles. Here are the official measurements. They don't tell the
history of the car's design which is what we were discussing, but show
the miniscule difference between these models.

2004 S80:
Length 189.80 in | 4826.0 mm. | 4.8 m.
Width 72.10 in | 1828.8 mm. | 1.8 m.
Height 57.20 in | 1447.8 mm. | 1.4 m.
Wheelbase 109.90 in | 2794.0 mm. | 2.8 m.
Since 1996 the only dimension that has changed is the height, it was
56.5 in 1996.

2004 V70:
Length 185.40 in | 4699.0 mm. | 4.7 m.
Width 71.00 in | 1803.4 mm. | 1.8 m.
Height 57.70 in | 1473.2 mm. | 1.5 m.
Wheelbase 108.50 in | 2768.6 mm. | 2.8 m.
Since 1999 the dimensions have not changed.

2004 S60:
Length 180.20 in | 4572.0 mm. | 4.6 m.
Width 71.00 in | 1803.4 mm. | 1.8 m.
Height 56.20 in | 1422.4 mm. | 1.4 m.
Wheelbase 107.00 in | 2717.8 mm. | 2.7 m.
Since 2000 the dimensions have not changed.

The V70 was designed after the S80 and before the S60, hence it could
have never been based upon the S60.
 
The V70 Mkll was a retrograde update after the S60 entered the new car stakes.
The earlier V70 was based on the 850 estate an entirely different vehicle,
although current with the first S60s..

Cheers, Peter.

:
: > As you quoted Stephen "While the S60 is based on the S80 platform (albeit
: > 280 mm shorter overall and 75 mm shorter between axles).
: (actually the current model of the S60 is 254.0 mm shorter overall and
: has a 76.2 mm shorter wheelbase than the V70)
:
: > The V70 is the same width, wheelbase and height as the S60.
: (actually the current model of the V70 is 127.0 mm longer overall and
: has a 50.8 mm longer wheelbase than the S60)
:
: > Volvo may say that the S60 and V70 are based on the S80 chassis but
: > anybody can tell that the S80 is quite a bit larger than the
: > other two. If you still do not believe me then go measure.
:
: I did using the official Volvo numbers and it is not so:
:
: In overall length the V70 is midway between the S60 and S80. In
: wheelbase, the V70 is closer to the S80 than the S60. In width, the V70
: and S60 are the same. In height, the V70 is tallest.
:
: The term chassis hasn't applied to Volvos for many years. Volvo uses
: the term platform which is the design term used with unichassis
: vehicles. Here are the official measurements. They don't tell the
: history of the car's design which is what we were discussing, but show
: the miniscule difference between these models.
:
: 2004 S80:
: Length 189.80 in | 4826.0 mm. | 4.8 m.
: Width 72.10 in | 1828.8 mm. | 1.8 m.
: Height 57.20 in | 1447.8 mm. | 1.4 m.
: Wheelbase 109.90 in | 2794.0 mm. | 2.8 m.
: Since 1996 the only dimension that has changed is the height, it was
: 56.5 in 1996.
:
: 2004 V70:
: Length 185.40 in | 4699.0 mm. | 4.7 m.
: Width 71.00 in | 1803.4 mm. | 1.8 m.
: Height 57.70 in | 1473.2 mm. | 1.5 m.
: Wheelbase 108.50 in | 2768.6 mm. | 2.8 m.
: Since 1999 the dimensions have not changed.
:
: 2004 S60:
: Length 180.20 in | 4572.0 mm. | 4.6 m.
: Width 71.00 in | 1803.4 mm. | 1.8 m.
: Height 56.20 in | 1422.4 mm. | 1.4 m.
: Wheelbase 107.00 in | 2717.8 mm. | 2.7 m.
: Since 2000 the dimensions have not changed.
:
: The V70 was designed after the S80 and before the S60, hence it could
: have never been based upon the S60.
:
: --
: Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to [email protected]
: Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
: Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '02 Volvos.
: The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '02 through European Delivery.
: http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html
 
Peter Milnes said:
The V70 Mkll was a retrograde update after the S60 entered the new car
stakes.
The earlier V70 was based on the 850 estate an entirely different vehicle,
although current with the first S60s..
Click to expand...

The S80 came out in 1996 and was redesigned in 1999. The V70 came out
in 1999 and used the S80 platform. The S60 came out in 2001, the same
year the V70 was redesigned and the S60 replaced the S70.

1995 850:
Length 183.40 in | 4648.2 mm. | 4.6 m.
Width 79.50 in | 2032.0 mm. | 2.0 m.
Height 55.10 in | 1397.0 mm. | 1.4 m.
Wheelbase 105.10 in | 2667.0 mm. | 2.7 m.
:
: 2004 S80:
: Length 189.80 in | 4826.0 mm. | 4.8 m.
: Width 72.10 in | 1828.8 mm. | 1.8 m.
: Height 57.20 in | 1447.8 mm. | 1.4 m.
: Wheelbase 109.90 in | 2794.0 mm. | 2.8 m.
: Since 1996 the only dimension that has changed is the height, it was
: 56.5 in 1996.
:
: 2004 V70:
: Length 185.40 in | 4699.0 mm. | 4.7 m.
: Width 71.00 in | 1803.4 mm. | 1.8 m.
: Height 57.70 in | 1473.2 mm. | 1.5 m.
: Wheelbase 108.50 in | 2768.6 mm. | 2.8 m.
: Since 1999 the dimensions have not changed.
:
: 2004 S60:
: Length 180.20 in | 4572.0 mm. | 4.6 m.
: Width 71.00 in | 1803.4 mm. | 1.8 m.
: Height 56.20 in | 1422.4 mm. | 1.4 m.
: Wheelbase 107.00 in | 2717.8 mm. | 2.7 m.
: Since 2000 the dimensions have not changed.
:
: The V70 was designed after the S80 and before the S60, hence it could
: have never been based upon the S60.
Click to expand...
 
The S80 was never current with the S/V90. This model ceased production in 1998
and the S80 appeared in 1999. If you continue to disagree with what I say then
you must just agree to differ and leave it at that.

Cheers, Peter.

:
: > The V70 Mkll was a retrograde update after the S60 entered the new car
: > stakes.
: > The earlier V70 was based on the 850 estate an entirely different vehicle,
: > although current with the first S60s..
:
: The S80 came out in 1996 and was redesigned in 1999. The V70 came out
: in 1999 and used the S80 platform. The S60 came out in 2001, the same
: year the V70 was redesigned and the S60 replaced the S70.
:
: 1995 850:
: Length 183.40 in | 4648.2 mm. | 4.6 m.
: Width 79.50 in | 2032.0 mm. | 2.0 m.
: Height 55.10 in | 1397.0 mm. | 1.4 m.
: Wheelbase 105.10 in | 2667.0 mm. | 2.7 m.
: > :
: > : 2004 S80:
: > : Length 189.80 in | 4826.0 mm. | 4.8 m.
: > : Width 72.10 in | 1828.8 mm. | 1.8 m.
: > : Height 57.20 in | 1447.8 mm. | 1.4 m.
: > : Wheelbase 109.90 in | 2794.0 mm. | 2.8 m.
: > : Since 1996 the only dimension that has changed is the height, it was
: > : 56.5 in 1996.
: > :
: > : 2004 V70:
: > : Length 185.40 in | 4699.0 mm. | 4.7 m.
: > : Width 71.00 in | 1803.4 mm. | 1.8 m.
: > : Height 57.70 in | 1473.2 mm. | 1.5 m.
: > : Wheelbase 108.50 in | 2768.6 mm. | 2.8 m.
: > : Since 1999 the dimensions have not changed.
: > :
: > : 2004 S60:
: > : Length 180.20 in | 4572.0 mm. | 4.6 m.
: > : Width 71.00 in | 1803.4 mm. | 1.8 m.
: > : Height 56.20 in | 1422.4 mm. | 1.4 m.
: > : Wheelbase 107.00 in | 2717.8 mm. | 2.7 m.
: > : Since 2000 the dimensions have not changed.
: > :
: > : The V70 was designed after the S80 and before the S60, hence it could
: > : have never been based upon the S60.
:
: --
: Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to [email protected]
: Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
: Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '02 Volvos.
: The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '02 through European Delivery.
: http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top