Best Volvo After 2001?

[Steve J]

Would anyone kindly give thier opinion as to the best Volvo in the
post 2001 era?
To me 'best' means reliability and not a lot of trips to the shop.

TIA

 

[Stephen M. Henning]

Would anyone kindly give thier opinion as to the best Volvo in the
post 2001 era?
To me 'best' means reliability and not a lot of trips to the shop.

The most reliable used Volvos are:

VOLVO S40/V40 '01 - '02
VOLVO S60 '01 - '03
VOLVO V70 '02 - '03
VOLVO S80 '02
VOLVO XC90 '03

 

[Tall Guy CA]

How about C70?

The most reliable used Volvos are:

VOLVO S40/V40 '01 - '02
VOLVO S60 '01 - '03
VOLVO V70 '02 - '03
VOLVO S80 '02
VOLVO XC90 '03

 

[Ray Laughton]

The most reliable used Volvos are:

VOLVO S40/V40 '01 - '02
VOLVO S60 '01 - '03
VOLVO V70 '02 - '03
VOLVO S80 '02
VOLVO XC90 '03

I'm relieved to see the XC90 is reliable, it seems one gets the wrong
impression reading the NG

RL

 

[James Sweet]

I'm relieved to see the XC90 is reliable, it seems one gets the wrong
impression reading the NG

RL

It's easy to get that impression about any car by reading it's respective
newsgroup, particularly something so new, most of the people who seek out
the newsgroup are the ones having problems.

 

[Steve S]

I guess it depends on your definition of "reliability". I owned
Honda's in the past, and only had them in the shop at recommended
service intervals or when I needed new tires - that's it!! Our
current Volvos (2000 S40 and 2002 S60) have never left us stranded;
however, I am on a first name basis with the service department due to
lots of little annoying problems. (On a positive note, I get to drive
all types of Volvo's as loaner cars). It seems these types of
problems are very common with Volvo - it either bothers the hell out
of you and leave Volvo, or you accept it as part of the cost for what
ever reason you like Volvo (in my case - safety has been the only real
reason I have stuck with them).

 

[Stephen M. Henning]

The most reliable used Volvos are:

How about C70?

The sample size is too small to come to a conclusion. Since it is based
on the old S70 sedan, the C70 reliability should be below average. This
is probably the last year for the C70, though a replacement based on the
S40 should arrive in 2005.

 

[Bill Stehlin]

Consumer Reports has been very accurate for me over the years. The
'03 XC70 is recommended, but the '03 XC90 is listed as a "used car to
avoid."

 

[Michael Hobbs]

And, for newer cars the sample size is so small.. I have hesitated to
respond to the original message, but my '04 S80 with 15,000 miles remains
perfect as it was when I bought it.

 

[Rob Guenther]

Then again your Volvo has many more cool toys (which always tend to brean
down)... your Honda more then likely had very simple buttons to activate all
the features, either hard wired in, or controlled with relays (solid state
or mechanical). Most of the Volvo problems are with how the button
interfaces to the computer and how it is interpreted.... I know what you
mean about the in-shop time, friends of mine have a V70, and the poor car
has been software updated more then my copy of windows XP ...... Nothing
really "wrong" with it tho, mechanically its been the model of perfections,
technology wise - the bugs are being worked out by a computer programmer.

I'm glad we have the old style 960, combines all those nice features with a
simpler style wiring system - i'm sure i'll be leafing thru pages upon pages
of wiring schematics if the simplest thing broke down, but hey, that's why
i'm an electrician ;-).

 

[Stephen M. Henning]

Consumer Reports has been very accurate for me over the years. The
'03 XC70 is recommended, but the '03 XC90 is listed as a "used car to
avoid."

Actually they call this first year reliability or sample defects. The
XC90 has trouble when new with it power assisted accessories. The jury
is still out on whether these are fixed by warranty repairs.

 

[Hal Whelply]

Steve, I could have written your post below myself. I went to an '01 S60
after six Hondas. Same experience with Hondas that you had. Same experience
with Volvo that you're having.

What I don't understand is, if Toyota and Honda can get quality/reliability
right, why can't Volvo? If you put out more money for a premium car,
shouldn't you be able to expect premium reliability and general quality?
Sometimes I'm so ambivalent about that car. We really enjoy it. It's never
let us down. I love the styling. But I know all the service writers at my
dealership (and that dealership is another plus) by first name. And I'm
dreading the imminent demise of our warranty. (Won't buy an extension--I'll
gamble, despite the poor odds.) Will we get another. I really don't know
yet.

My latest passion, since I couldn't afford the XC70 I wanted (and support
two [2] Volvos at one time?!?!) is my 2004 Subaru Forester XT. Looks like a
small soccer-mom car, goes like the proverbial bat out of hell. Should be
able to do 0-60 in no more than 6.7 seconds, very likely less. Subaru is a
bit offbeat, and I like that. Very high quality. Very good safety (5 stars
front and side). Very reliable. Funky styling but at least it has character.
Gas mileage (premium) could be better. But fun comes at a price. And, now I
have two cars with turbos requiring premium gas that, here, is $2.25-2.50 a
gallon. But they're fun!

HW

 

[Joseph Oberlander]

My latest passion, since I couldn't afford the XC70 I wanted (and support
two [2] Volvos at one time?!?!) is my 2004 Subaru Forester XT. Looks like a
small soccer-mom car, goes like the proverbial bat out of hell. Should be
able to do 0-60 in no more than 6.7 seconds, very likely less. Subaru is a
bit offbeat, and I like that. Very high quality. Very good safety (5 stars
front and side). Very reliable. Funky styling but at least it has character.
Gas mileage (premium) could be better. But fun comes at a price. And, now I
have two cars with turbos requiring premium gas that, here, is $2.25-2.50 a
gallon. But they're fun!

SAAB is the same way. Quirky but superb cars. At least while the
Swedish built models are still available.(couple more years)

 

[Steve S]

Hal - interesting comments. I often wonder same thing about Volvo
regarding getting quality/reliability right in these expensive cars.
But then, I guess that is why Acura and Lexus have historically done
so well - perks that go with a premium car with the generally
reliability of a Honda and Toyota. I know when it comes time to
replace one of our Volvos, we are going to be torn between all of
these issues. Especially with how Honda and Toyota are progressing in
safety...

Steve, I could have written your post below myself. I went to an '01 S60
after six Hondas. Same experience with Hondas that you had. Same experience
with Volvo that you're having.

What I don't understand is, if Toyota and Honda can get quality/reliability
right, why can't Volvo? If you put out more money for a premium car,
shouldn't you be able to expect premium reliability and general quality?
Sometimes I'm so ambivalent about that car. We really enjoy it. It's never
let us down. I love the styling. But I know all the service writers at my
dealership (and that dealership is another plus) by first name. And I'm
dreading the imminent demise of our warranty. (Won't buy an extension--I'll
gamble, despite the poor odds.) Will we get another. I really don't know
yet.

My latest passion, since I couldn't afford the XC70 I wanted (and support
two [2] Volvos at one time?!?!) is my 2004 Subaru Forester XT. Looks like a
small soccer-mom car, goes like the proverbial bat out of hell. Should be
able to do 0-60 in no more than 6.7 seconds, very likely less. Subaru is a
bit offbeat, and I like that. Very high quality. Very good safety (5 stars
front and side). Very reliable. Funky styling but at least it has character.
Gas mileage (premium) could be better. But fun comes at a price. And, now I
have two cars with turbos requiring premium gas that, here, is $2.25-2.50 a
gallon. But they're fun!

HW

I guess it depends on your definition of "reliability". I owned
Honda's in the past, and only had them in the shop at recommended
service intervals or when I needed new tires - that's it!! Our
current Volvos (2000 S40 and 2002 S60) have never left us stranded;
however, I am on a first name basis with the service department due to
lots of little annoying problems. (On a positive note, I get to drive
all types of Volvo's as loaner cars). It seems these types of
problems are very common with Volvo - it either bothers the hell out
of you and leave Volvo, or you accept it as part of the cost for what
ever reason you like Volvo (in my case - safety has been the only real
reason I have stuck with them).

Steve J <[email protected]> wrote in message

 

[Rob Guenther]

Honestly, I find Honda/Toyota seem to use older, but heavly refined ways of
doing things... Which of course makes it all work nicely... The Euro car
manfs (I have VW's too and the owners have the exact same gripes as Volvo
owners, stuff not working, why cant we match the Japanese, bla bla bla...)
seem to try new approaches to do things, sometimes out of the need to save
money (it costs more money to make a car in Europe... not sure if it's less
then in Japan, but I believe it might be), sometimes to improve technology..
For the most part Japanese automakers don't innovate (exception with the
Hybrid, but this could stem from demand in their home market - europeans
like disels for fuel economy, USA seems to not care) they tend to refine
refine refine... Not to say the Euro's aren't refined, but they don't seem
to stick with one thing long enough to make it perfect.

Also, you can't really compare a Honda or a Toyota to a Volvo, its a totally
different type of car (more goodies in a Volvo)... and the 5 speed trannies
Honda is making are really screwed up, huge recalls!... which shocked me, I
never heard one bad thing about a Honda tranny.

Plus, minus a few Honda models the interiors are total garbage (imo)... so
boring and plain, and they are not finished with the same calibre as a
Volvo...

Steve, I could have written your post below myself. I went to an '01 S60
after six Hondas. Same experience with Hondas that you had. Same experience
with Volvo that you're having.

What I don't understand is, if Toyota and Honda can get quality/reliability
right, why can't Volvo? If you put out more money for a premium car,
shouldn't you be able to expect premium reliability and general quality?
Sometimes I'm so ambivalent about that car. We really enjoy it. It's never
let us down. I love the styling. But I know all the service writers at my
dealership (and that dealership is another plus) by first name. And I'm
dreading the imminent demise of our warranty. (Won't buy an extension--I'll
gamble, despite the poor odds.) Will we get another. I really don't know
yet.

My latest passion, since I couldn't afford the XC70 I wanted (and support
two [2] Volvos at one time?!?!) is my 2004 Subaru Forester XT. Looks like a
small soccer-mom car, goes like the proverbial bat out of hell. Should be
able to do 0-60 in no more than 6.7 seconds, very likely less. Subaru is a
bit offbeat, and I like that. Very high quality. Very good safety (5 stars
front and side). Very reliable. Funky styling but at least it has character.
Gas mileage (premium) could be better. But fun comes at a price. And, now I
have two cars with turbos requiring premium gas that, here, is $2.25-2.50 a
gallon. But they're fun!

HW

I guess it depends on your definition of "reliability". I owned
Honda's in the past, and only had them in the shop at recommended
service intervals or when I needed new tires - that's it!! Our
current Volvos (2000 S40 and 2002 S60) have never left us stranded;
however, I am on a first name basis with the service department due to
lots of little annoying problems. (On a positive note, I get to drive
all types of Volvo's as loaner cars). It seems these types of
problems are very common with Volvo - it either bothers the hell out
of you and leave Volvo, or you accept it as part of the cost for what
ever reason you like Volvo (in my case - safety has been the only real
reason I have stuck with them).

Steve J <[email protected]> wrote in message

 

[Hal Whelply]

Rob,

Points taken, but (a) Hondas don't cost quite as much as Volvos (except
base NA S60s, and S40s); (b) simple will typically be more reliable; (c)
"older, but heavily refined" typically will be more reliable; and (d) new
approaches that yield new results, though inconsistently, is less appealing
to me than reliable service.

"Refine, refine, refine..."---and the problem with that would be...?

As much as I like our S60, it's not clear to me which innovations it
features that fundamentally and very saliently make the driving experience
better than it was in my '99 Accord V6 (very sweet engine), or my Subaru.
And how can a European be saving money if he's spending more time and money
in the repair bay?

I can't say that I have notably more "goodies" in our S60 than in the '99
Honda or the '04 Subaru.

Didn't know about the 5-speed Honda automatic problems, except in Acuras. I
know someone who had one "bite." In the interest of "fair and balanced
report," I can tell you about a bad, brand-new '93 Prelude 5-speed manual;
personal experience that I'll spare you for now. Yes, Hondas aren't perfect,
but they're as close to it as I've experienced.

As for interiors, yes, Hondas are minimal, but they're the gold standard in
ergonomics. Based on extensive experience with both brands, I'd say Volvo
could learn a thing or two.

As for comparing interior fit and finish, I'd have to say my '99 Accord was
superior to my '01 Volvo. Not a huge difference, admittedly. But the Volvo
certainly doesn't stand out. Further, the Accord didn't have a glove box
with a large door gap and bad fit.

Seriously, despite many positive characteristics, Volvo needs a reality
check.

HW

Honestly, I find Honda/Toyota seem to use older, but heavly refined ways of
doing things... Which of course makes it all work nicely... The Euro car
manfs (I have VW's too and the owners have the exact same gripes as Volvo
owners, stuff not working, why cant we match the Japanese, bla bla bla...)
seem to try new approaches to do things, sometimes out of the need to save
money (it costs more money to make a car in Europe... not sure if it's less
then in Japan, but I believe it might be), sometimes to improve technology..
For the most part Japanese automakers don't innovate (exception with the
Hybrid, but this could stem from demand in their home market - europeans
like disels for fuel economy, USA seems to not care) they tend to refine
refine refine... Not to say the Euro's aren't refined, but they don't seem
to stick with one thing long enough to make it perfect.

Also, you can't really compare a Honda or a Toyota to a Volvo, its a totally
different type of car (more goodies in a Volvo)... and the 5 speed trannies
Honda is making are really screwed up, huge recalls!... which shocked me, I
never heard one bad thing about a Honda tranny.

Plus, minus a few Honda models the interiors are total garbage (imo)... so
boring and plain, and they are not finished with the same calibre as a
Volvo...

Steve, I could have written your post below myself. I went to an '01 S60
after six Hondas. Same experience with Hondas that you had. Same experience
with Volvo that you're having.

What I don't understand is, if Toyota and Honda can get quality/reliability
right, why can't Volvo? If you put out more money for a premium car,
shouldn't you be able to expect premium reliability and general quality?
Sometimes I'm so ambivalent about that car. We really enjoy it. It's never
let us down. I love the styling. But I know all the service writers at my
dealership (and that dealership is another plus) by first name. And I'm
dreading the imminent demise of our warranty. (Won't buy an extension--I'll
gamble, despite the poor odds.) Will we get another. I really don't know
yet.

My latest passion, since I couldn't afford the XC70 I wanted (and support
two [2] Volvos at one time?!?!) is my 2004 Subaru Forester XT. Looks

like

a
small soccer-mom car, goes like the proverbial bat out of hell. Should be
able to do 0-60 in no more than 6.7 seconds, very likely less. Subaru is a
bit offbeat, and I like that. Very high quality. Very good safety (5 stars
front and side). Very reliable. Funky styling but at least it has character.
Gas mileage (premium) could be better. But fun comes at a price. And,

now

I
have two cars with turbos requiring premium gas that, here, is

$2.25-2.50

a
gallon. But they're fun!

HW