almost 50 feet for a u turn???

[~^ beancounter ~^]

2008 VOLVO S80

Vehicle type: Five-passenger, four-door AWD sedan

Base price: $49,210 (as tested: $58,016)

Engine type: V-8 DOHC 32-valve

Displacement: 4.4-liter

Horsepower (net): 311 at 5,950 rpm

Torque (lb.-ft.): 325 at 3,950 rpm

Transmission: six-speed Geartronic

Wheelbase: 111 inches

Track (front/rear): 62 / 62 inches

Overall length: 191 inches

Overall width: 73 inches

Height: 59 inches

Turning circle (curb-to-curb): 40 feet

Curb weight: 4,100 pounds

Fuel capacity: 18 gallons

EPA mileage rating: 15 mpg city, 23 mpg highway

 

[Wooly]

2008 VOLVO S80

Turning circle (curb-to-curb): 40 feet

Do I smell a troll?

40' isn't exactly "almost 50". As my old granny used to say, "almost"
only counts when you're throwing hand grenades or horse shoes."

My (recently retired) Ford Explorer's turning radius was not quite 38'.
As the new S80 is slightly wider than my old Explorer and has a wider
wheelbase a 40' turning radius seems reasonable.

For comparison, the turning radius of a 2009 Mercury Milan is a shade
less than 39', the S-class Mercedes turning radius is 40' on the money,
and my 2003 V70 comes in with a 39' turning radius. At least per the
manufacturers' respective websites.

So really, what's the issue here? It would appear as if comparable
vehicles have comparable turning radii. If you want a tighter turning
radius you'll have to find something with a narrower wheelbase. Maybe a
Subaru?

 

[~^ beancounter ~^]

my 240's were aprox 15ft...my 1993 940t is around
20ft.....

don't know about japaneese subaru's.....

 

[James Sweet]

my 240's were aprox 15ft...my 1993 940t is around
20ft.....

don't know about japaneese subaru's.....

RWD car will almost always have a tighter turning radius than FWD, all other
things being equal. The 2/7/9 series Volvos have exceptional turning radii,
it's not the norm.

 

[BJ]

"~^ beancounter ~^" <[email protected]> skrev i en meddelelse

CUT

my 240's were aprox 15ft...my 1993 940t is around
20ft.....

don't know about japaneese subaru's.....

I know about the old S80, but here in Europe we are using the metric way.

With 15" wheels = 10,9 meter
With 16" wheels = 11,6 meter
With 17" wheels = 12,0 meter

So with 18" wheels it should be about the 40ft.

As it is front wheel driven, it has to use this space.

This is the worst about the S80, it is impossible to handle in a parking
area og garrage.

My wifes S40(n) is dream compared with the S80.

Best regards
Bjørn J . Denmark
S80 T6 BSR

 

[Wooly]

my 240's were aprox 15ft...my 1993 940t is around
20ft.....

don't know about japaneese subaru's.....

I guess we know now why so many women think |__| is six inches!

I find it hard to believe that a car the size of a 240 had a 15' turning
radius, especially since Volvo reports it at 32'+
http://new.volvocars.com/ownersdocs/1986/1986_240/86240_04.htm

The 940 has a turning radius in the 32-33' range as well
http://new.volvocars.com/ownersdocs/1994/1994_specs/1994_940_Turbo_wagon.html

The (older) Volvos obviously have a higher turn lock ratio than the
newer ones but is that really a problem for you? Maybe you should
practice your 3-point turns?

 

[BJ]

"Wooly" <nobody@nunya> skrev i en meddelelse

KLIP

The (older) Volvos obviously have a higher turn lock ratio than the newer
ones but is that really a problem for you? Maybe you should practice your
3-point turns?

It is certainly a must to be able to manage, when you try to dock the ship.

Best regards
Bjørn J.

 

[Andy]

There seems to be confusion here concerning "Radius" and "Diameter".
The minimum distance between the curbs for a "180" U-turn would be the
*diameter* of the "turning circle".
Half of that would be the *radius*.

Now guys................. sort yourselves out.
Andy I. (Glad mine is a 240!)


: ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
: > my 240's were aprox 15ft...my 1993 940t is around
: > 20ft.....
: >
: > don't know about japaneese subaru's.....
:
: I guess we know now why so many women think |__| is six inches!
:
: I find it hard to believe that a car the size of a 240 had a 15' turning
: radius, especially since Volvo reports it at 32'+
: http://new.volvocars.com/ownersdocs/1986/1986_240/86240_04.htm
:
: The 940 has a turning radius in the 32-33' range as well
:
http://new.volvocars.com/ownersdocs/1994/1994_specs/1994_940_Turbo_wagon.html
:
: The (older) Volvos obviously have a higher turn lock ratio than the
: newer ones but is that really a problem for you? Maybe you should
: practice your 3-point turns?

 

[Padraig]

Turning circle (curb-to-curb): 40 feet

I own an '01 S80 with 17" wheels myself and will attest the maneuverability
on the car is considerably worse than most cars I've driven. I know this is
only one aspect of the overall vehicle but it is a source of
dissatisfaction, most noticeable and most bothersome when parking in tight
spaces. I have had other FWD sedans over the years including 2 Cadillacs
that must have had similar or larger interior space that turned better. I
would have hoped that Volvo would have attempted a redesign of the steering
geometry sometime since mine was built but apparently they had other things
to do.

As a comparison I also own a RWD Mercedes-Benz AMG CLK 430 coupe which I
readily admit is a smaller and totally different type of car, but just for
conversation it will hang a u-turn in slightly more than its own length.
More directly comparable to the S80 in size are the RWD E-Class Mercedes'
I've owned and they likewise held a considerable manueverability
advantage --- not quite as good as the little AMG coupe but darned good
anyway. That E-Class is the type of turning performance Volvo's S80 is
compared against. Many drivers, maybe even most drivers, probably don't
even know if their cars are FWD or RWD. All they know is that they turn or
they don't. It does no good to try to explain to them that they should make
allowances for their FWD cars because they're at a design disadvantage.

Not a troll. Simple truth.

Paddy's Pig

 

[Wooly]

It is certainly a must to be able to manage, when you try to dock the ship.

Hey, I can parallel park a 10-ton dumper and that turning radius is
bigger than a city block! Use a tug to dock the ship

 

[Roger Mills]

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,

There seems to be confusion here concerning "Radius" and "Diameter".
The minimum distance between the curbs for a "180" U-turn would be the
*diameter* of the "turning circle".
Half of that would be the *radius*.

Now guys................. sort yourselves out.
Andy I. (Glad mine is a 240!)

Well said - you beat me to it!

As others have said, it's down to front or rear wheel drive and tyre size -
or, at any rate, tyre *width*.

Front wheel drive cars invariably have transverse engines which require a
wider engine bay than rear wheel drive cars with fore and aft engines -
leaving less space in the wheel-arches for the wheels to steer.

There's probably a limit on the maximum articulation of the constant
velocity joints too - but the wheels are likely to foul the wheel-arches
before that is reached.

My new V70 (S80 platform) has 17" very wide low profile tyres and has a
*much* worse turning circle than my previous V70 (850 shape) which had 15"
somewhat narrower tyres. This is very noticeable when reversing into parking
spaces.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

 

[~^ beancounter ~^]

my 1979 tr spitfire turns on a dime and
gives you $.08 change...it turns so sharp, the
tyres chatter and scuff...trying to get grip on the road...

not like the s80.....the ride is a bit different as well...not
near as nice....

 

[BJ]

"~^ beancounter ~^" <[email protected]> skrev i en meddelelse

CUT

my 1979 tr spitfire turns on a dime and
gives you $.08 change...it turns so sharp, the
tyres chatter and scuff...trying to get grip on the road...

not like the s80.....the ride is a bit different as well...not
near as nice....

It is also much more interesting, especially when the rear wheels meets
together in the middle....due to the rear axel construction....!

Best regards
Bjørn J. also with a 1984 Nissan Silvia (S12).

 

[James Sweet]

Front wheel drive cars invariably have transverse engines which require a
wider engine bay than rear wheel drive cars with fore and aft engines -
leaving less space in the wheel-arches for the wheels to steer.

That's not quite true. Saab 900s up to '93 are front wheel drive with a
longitudinal engine, as are early Toyota Tercels, I'm guessing there must be
others.

In the sense of currently produced cars that statement is probably true
though.

 

[~^ beancounter ~^]

yea, the spitfire does get a bit squrily doing
some high speed cornering...they are fun to
drive behind and watch going through hard
corners.....

 

[Andy Dingley]

Front wheel drive cars invariably have transverse engines which require a
wider engine bay than rear wheel drive cars with fore and aft engines -

That has nothing to do with it. It's because of the limited
articulation of the CV joints used in FWD or AWD vehicles limiting the
amount of steering movement, not the engine getting in the way.

Apart from which, there are plenty of FWD cars that use non-transverse
engines. Old Renaults used a longitudinal vertical-block engine for
years, as did Audi. Saab have used a slant-4 that's wider. I've got an
Alfasud myself that's a flat-4 boxer engine, yet happens to have a good
turning circle.

Triumphs Spitfires, Heralds & Vitesses had a famously tight turning
circle, as their front wings were part of an overall tilt-forward
bonnet. Combined with a very compact wishbone and shock absorber layout,
this allowed plenty of room for the wheel to move.

 

[Roger Mills]

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,

That has nothing to do with it. It's because of the limited
articulation of the CV joints used in FWD or AWD vehicles limiting the
amount of steering movement, not the engine getting in the way.

I mentioned CV joint articulation as a possible factor in my previous post -
but discounted it for cars with 'wide' tyres, where wheel clearance limits
steering angle *before* you run out of CV joint movement.

If that is not true, how do you explain the fact that the turning circle of
models such as the Volvo V70 depands on what tyres are fitted, even though
the CV joints are the same?
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

 

[Bob (but not THAT Bob)]

my 240's were aprox 15ft...my 1993 940t is around
20ft.....

Not even close - try 32 ft. for a 240 and/or 940.

I admit it feels like 15 ft. compared to a FWD or AWD Volvo.

 

[~^ beancounter ~^]

yea, it must seem a lot smaller...i know i can do a u trun w/out
hitting the curbs
in a normal residential street.....the 240 seemed a bit tighter than
the 940...

 

[clay]

yea, it must seem a lot smaller...i know i can do a u trun w/out
hitting the curbs
in a normal residential street.....the 240 seemed a bit tighter than
the 940...

I always get looks when I pull u turns in my 245. Wind it all the way
left, roll forward a bit and the tires clunk over to ~89.9° (ok, the
frontend is a little loose *g*) and it will turn inside most anything...
Great for getting into the micro mini parking stalls retailers are
putting out front these days.