Ok, How About An XC-70?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

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
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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 [email protected]
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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?
Click to expand...

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 [email protected]
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 [email protected]
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
What about the added inertia of a heavier vehicle trying to push forward? On
snow and/or ice where your friction coefficient is a lot smaller I would
think mass would have more of an effect. You have slightly more weight
pressing down, increasing your friction on 4 tires... but I don't really
think that this can overcome the added mass trying to fly forward... I mean
it probably doesn't make a huge difference, but I think it would effect
stopping by a few meters.

More mass means slower acceleration and worsened fuel economy... wouldn't it
also hinder decelleration?
 
What about the added inertia of a heavier vehicle trying to push forward? On
snow and/or ice where your friction coefficient is a lot smaller I would
think mass would have more of an effect. You have slightly more weight
pressing down, increasing your friction on 4 tires... but I don't really
think that this can overcome the added mass trying to fly forward... I mean
it probably doesn't make a huge difference, but I think it would effect
stopping by a few meters.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but A level physics shows the above to be total nonsense.
More mass means slower acceleration and worsened fuel economy... wouldn't it
also hinder decelleration?
Click to expand...

Acceleration = force / mass.

deceleration is just negative acceleration.

So you need more force to decelerate a heavy car. But (assuming the
brakes are good enough) the extra weight also means you can put more
frictional force through the road, because friction is proportional to
pressure (weight).

Thus a heavy car has, in the perfect world of physics, exactly the
same braking performance as a lighter one.

However, it isn't that easy. For a start, weight transfer means that
the front wheels do more of the braking. But a heavy car doesn't
necessarily have the extra weight over the front wheels. The weight
transfer effect is much higher on a raised vehicle with soft
suspension.

The extra force being applied by the brakes also means they will get
hotter faster, and may be more susceptible to fade.




--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
 
Very interesting... thanks.

Doesn't make complete sense to me, but oh well... learn something every day.
 
Is there a significant other in your home?

We already had, and were keeping, a 98 V70XC when that old urge hit me
once again. My wife didn't even have to take a ride (though we did, of
course) in the S60AWD for the choice to be made and peace maintained.
These points versus a BMW 330xi. Seats and legroom were Volvo without
doubt. For me, as driver, there was even a difference due to my
preference for Birkenstock shoes.

Hitting *only* the clutch or brake pedal is something of a trick in the
new S40 that I drove. I didn't even bother to ask my favorite navigator
to try what is allowed for space on the right-hand side. Many years of
marriage teaches the wisdom of picking your battles!

bob noble
Reno, NV, USA
 
Rob Guenther said:
What about the added inertia of a heavier vehicle trying to push forward?
Click to expand...

But also have more weight pushing down creating more friction. They
cancel each other.

This is physics 101. I am a physicist.
 
Stephen M. Henning said:
But also have more weight pushing down creating more friction. They
cancel each other.

This is physics 101. I am a physicist.
Click to expand...

You'd be a good person to ask, then - with auto tires, is the pressure
(let's call it about 30 psi) high enough to liquify the surface of ice the
way I'm told ice skates do? My guess is "no" except possibly very near the
melting point anyway.

Mike
 
Bob Noble said:
Is there a significant other in your home?

We already had, and were keeping, a 98 V70XC when that old urge hit me
once again. My wife didn't even have to take a ride (though we did, of
course) in the S60AWD for the choice to be made and peace maintained.
These points versus a BMW 330xi. Seats and legroom were Volvo without
doubt. For me, as driver, there was even a difference due to my
preference for Birkenstock shoes.

Hitting *only* the clutch or brake pedal is something of a trick in the
new S40 that I drove. I didn't even bother to ask my favorite navigator
to try what is allowed for space on the right-hand side. Many years of
marriage teaches the wisdom of picking your battles!

bob noble
Reno, NV, USA
Click to expand...
Wow, you guys are cranking out some great advice. Keep it coming. Here
is what I have learned on my end:
--Volvo had to redesign part of the 5 cylinder engine so it would fit
in the new V-50 and retain a safe crumple zone. One independent
mechanic I talked to said that he understands they could have just
stuffed the engine into the car like General Motors or Ford would do.
But, Volvo almost redid the entire engine for safety sake.
--Also, the V-50 does not feel like a Volvo at all.
--My dealer had 6 new 2004's come in and they were gone in a week's
time.
--The V-50's are selling very well. I find the cabin a little smaller
than my Subaru. But, the handling is awesome. Can you believe that the
salesman I drove with is a racer? So, he had me take a few corners at
a faster speed than I normally would have gone on a test drive to
prove the car's handling. Whew, what a great test drive!
--My dealer admits that this is not a traditional Volvo. But, he said
that the traction control system they are using on the new Volvos is a
Ford invention. However, no one at Ford could get it to work until
they showed it to the Volvo engineers. Has anyone else hear this?

Other than that, I am still test driving cars. The new Subaru Outback
Limited is one hell of a nice ride. Very powerful with a 3 foot long
sunroof. The handling is better than my L.L. Bean. The turbo is great
too. I also drove a Toyota Highlander and a Honda Pilot. Both of those
cars answer the call of "driving up high" that seems to call all of us
once in a while.
Anyway, thanks for the input. I'll keep you posted. I hope to look at
the XC-70 and the V-70 (front wheel drive) this week some more.
Thanks,
Fred
 
Tim said:
Sorry, but A level physics shows the above to be total nonsense.


Acceleration = force / mass.

deceleration is just negative acceleration.

So you need more force to decelerate a heavy car. But (assuming the
brakes are good enough) the extra weight also means you can put more
frictional force through the road, because friction is proportional to
pressure (weight).

Thus a heavy car has, in the perfect world of physics, exactly the
same braking performance as a lighter one.

However, it isn't that easy. For a start, weight transfer means that
the front wheels do more of the braking. But a heavy car doesn't
necessarily have the extra weight over the front wheels. The weight
transfer effect is much higher on a raised vehicle with soft
suspension.

The extra force being applied by the brakes also means they will get
hotter faster, and may be more susceptible to fade.
Click to expand...

Plus, don't forget the effect of higher loads on tires. One other
effect is the way the rubber interfaces with the road surface. With
higher pressures on the contact patch, there's more load on this
interlocking, and less ultimate grip. This argument applies to
cornering too... although ideal high school physics suggests more weight
should not change ultimate cornering force, we all know that's not true.

--
Mike F.
Thornhill (near Toronto), Ont.

Replace tt with t (twice!) and remove parentheses to email me directly.
(But I check the newsgroup more often than this email address.)
 
Plus, don't forget the effect of higher loads on tires. One other
effect is the way the rubber interfaces with the road surface. With
higher pressures on the contact patch, there's more load on this
interlocking, and less ultimate grip. This argument applies to
cornering too... although ideal high school physics suggests more weight
should not change ultimate cornering force, we all know that's not true.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In schoolboy physics, all race cars have bicycle tyres,
because the greater contact area of a wide wheel makes no difference
to grip. I'm sure Ferrari et al don't carry all the weight and drag
of a wide wheel for no good reason....


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
 
Go for V70 for space & if you never want to go offroad. If you want the odd
excursion offroad, XC70 is a better bet, but this ability compromises it's
onroad performance. V50 is cheaper & smaller & is best option if you want a
road car but don't need V70 space. Incidentally, T5 is quicker than 2.5T &
engine is more robust. Still, a turbo is better than no turbo. Test drive
them all, MUWAHAHAHA!

Andy P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top