V50 vs. V70 wagon

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

The S40 isn't particularly good in side impact crashes.

Java

 

The S40 has 5-star rating for side impact crashes. There isn't a higher
rating.

 

Not in IIHS crash tests, where it rates "acceptable" rather than "good".

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

Java

 

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

 

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

 

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.