V50 vs. V70 wagon

Discussion in 'Volvo V70' started by Wooly, Aug 25, 2007.

  1. Wooly

    Wooly Guest

    AFAICT the main difference aside from cargo capacity is gas mileage
    ratings - the V70 is rated for 20mpg city versus 22mpg for the V50. I'm
    leaning toward the V50 for a variety of reasons but some members of the
    household think that SIZE MATTERS *g*

    Comments appreciated, esp regarding long-term mechanical issues either
    model might experience more frequently than the other. Because really,
    long-term reliability and low cost of ownership is going to be the
    deciding factor for us. Whichever we end up with will be certified used
    from the dealer, with some portion of warranty remaining.
     
    Wooly, Aug 25, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Hi,
    Sorry, but that's compairing apples to oranges...

    V50 and V70 are completly different cars, and both have not just one
    engine available.
    If size matters, go for the V70.


    Roland
     
    Roland Messerschmidt, Aug 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wooly

    Wooly Guest

    Yes, you're correct, I failed to provide enough details.
    The two cars on my short list do in fact have the same power plant and
    drivetrain: 2.5l 5-cylinder (turbo) engines with 5-speed automatic
    transmissions and FWD. They also happen to have nearly-identical weights,
    if the spec is to be believed.

    So to ask a more specific question: is the V50 overbuilt or is
    the V70 underbuilt, and how?
     
    Wooly, Aug 25, 2007
    #3
  4. Wooly

    Joerg Lorenz Guest

    The V70 is much more stable and the crash protection is much better. If
    gas mileage is an issue then go for a V70 with a diesel-engine.

    Joerg
     
    Joerg Lorenz, Aug 26, 2007
    #4
  5. Wooly

    Roadie Guest

    Cargo capacity, ride, room for driver and passenger, comfort of seats
    are a few differences. A 2 mpg difference is miniscule when you
    consider the other costs of owning a car.

    And, no you won't get a V70 for the price of a V50.

    Cost of ownership of either car is influenced by the following in
    descending order:
    1. Initial purchase price - other than obtaining a good deal from the
    dealer you are stuck with this cost. It's the single biggest
    determinant of long term vehicle cost.
    2. Required maintenance - very similar between both cars. And the
    parts are not cheap, although they are well made.
    3. Reliability - both cars have from what I've read a reasonable
    recods of reliability. But any car will ultimately break down and
    have to be repaired, and the parts are not cheap for either car.
    4. Fuel efficiency - Both cars will get MPG in the 20's. The V70
    turbo will get in the high 20's on the road and around 22-23 mpg in
    town if driven in a reasonable manner. The only time a difference in
    mpg should be a basis for purchasing one car over another is when you
    can make a significant leap in mpg. From 21mpg to 35 mpg or higher.
     
    Roadie, Aug 26, 2007
    #5
  6. Wooly

    Wooly Guest

    The 50-series lost the race on driver comfort alone. I have long legs
    and the 50 is just not built for my body type. My knees were sticking
    up into the steering wheel and I had to haul myself up and out because
    my hips were lower than my knees when in exit position.

    (oy, that just doesn't read well, does it)

    Getting out of the 70 was a much more dignified affair: swing out the
    legs, stand up. The fold-down console in the back seat is nice too - it
    separates two warring parties and reduces them to throwing spitwads :D

    So tomorrow I'll have my mechanic go over the 70 with a fine-toothed
    comb, if he green-lights the car I'll make the dealer a cash offer.

    And no, the 2mpg efficiency difference wasn't the deal-breaker.
    Long-term reliability is what I'm after and since both models measure up
    in that regard I opted for the full-sized wagon.
     
    Wooly, Aug 26, 2007
    #6
  7. Wooly

    Roadie Guest

    I'm sure you will enjoy it.

    My 2004 V70 2.5T with 235-45-70 wheels has just over 70,000 miles and
    it is a real pleasure on the road. It has plenty of room for carrying
    stuff and the fold-flat seats really help. I've driven the 40 and 50
    series as loaners from the dealer. And they are indeed nice cars, but
    they are not at the same level as a V70 because they don't cost as
    much.
     
    Roadie, Aug 26, 2007
    #7
  8. If you look at the specs, the V50 is smaller but not much lighter. It
    is made with less expensive materials so they can keep the price down.
    This increases the density of the finished product. The V70 has more
    high tech materials. This will have an effect on the very long term
    performance of its corrosion resistance and reliability of some parts.

    Data does not back this up. The V50 is also a very highly rated vehicle.

    The V70 has 5-star ratings for everything except rollover. There it has
    a 4-star rating. I haven't found data for the V50, but the S40 has
    similar ratings to the V70 except the driver frontal crash rating is
    only 4-stars. [5 stars is the best rating]

    Regarding fatality rates, the Volvo 850/V70 has the second lowest
    fatality rate after the Toyota Camry.

    The safest Volvos rated are the S80, C70, and XC90. The V50 and V70
    were not rated. [http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx]

    Sweden has the lowest fatality rate of all countries.
     
    Stephen Henning, Sep 4, 2007
    #8
  9. The S40 isn't particularly good in side impact crashes.

    Java
     
    Espressopithecus, Sep 5, 2007
    #9
  10. The S40 has 5-star rating for side impact crashes. There isn't a higher
    rating.
     
    Stephen Henning, Sep 5, 2007
    #10
  11. Not in IIHS crash tests, where it rates "acceptable" rather than "good".

    http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=265

    Java
     
    Espressopithecus (Java Man), Sep 6, 2007
    #11
  12. says...
    Check the latest results where the "2004 through 2008 S40 Aces NHTSA
    Side Impact Crash Test"

    http://www.safercar.gov/Index2.cfm?myClass=PC&myYear=2007&myMake=Volvo&my
    Model=S40&GoButton=View+specific+vehicle

    http://www.womanmotorist.com/index.php/news/main/3175/event=view

    http://www.automotive.com/used-cars/safety/11/volvo/s40/index.html
     
    Stephen Henning, Sep 6, 2007
    #12
  13. Thanks, I saw the NHTSA test results previously. I like to look at both
    the NHTSA and IIHS crash test results since real-world crash dynamics
    vary widely, and these agencies use different methodologies.

    Both the S40 and S60 get 4 out of 5 stars in IIHS driver's side impact
    tests; and the S40 gets 4 out of 5 stars in NHTSA driver's side front
    impact. Based on that, the S60 is slightly safer.

    However, comparing both NHTSA and IIHS rest results, the Audi A3 and A4
    do slightly better than both of the comparable Volvos in front and side
    impact crash tests. But the S40 and V60 fare slightly better in rear-
    impact.

    Java
     
    Espressopithecus (Java Man), Sep 6, 2007
    #13
  14. Wooly

    Roadie Guest

    The problem I see with NHTSA data is the assumption that only like
    size vehicles are involved in frontal crashes. I.E. sub-compacts
    crash into sub-compacts, monster SUV's into monster SUV's, etc. That
    presumably allows staisticians to cross-compare data but it does not
    reflect the real world where cars of all sizes crash into one another.

    I would be wary of trying to draw conclusions about the value of one
    simplistic star-based system over another. The testing organizations
    do not perform the same tests.
     
    Roadie, Sep 6, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.