Volvos are strange - every one ive owned has always felt right and is on my side - some cars you drive just waiting for things to break - ive never felt that in a Volvo, even an old one.
Buy it quick :-)
|
|
|
|
Thanks Adam , I will wait other replies on here hopefully ? Hope your Focus is still ok !
|
No problem.
Yep - the Focus is still going strong - shouldn't really say that though as something's bound to fall off!
|
|
Hopefully the boot ;-)
|
Touche. And to think I liked you too ;-)
|
|
|
|
I'm on my 3rd Volvo estate - having been through a 940, and 850 and now a 5 yr old V70. All have been good, sound cars - and I find the V70 very comfortable and quiet. Choose the Volvo....
T
|
|
|
|
Depends what you want; I have owned my 2003 V70 2.4T five speed manual (and quite significantly tuned) since new and love it. Effortlessly swift (even when standard), well built (queue Buster Cambelt...), reliable, practical, a serene way to cover huge mileages, and to my eyes, the best looking estate car on the market.
What no V70 will do - even an R - is handle like an Impreza. Predictable, yes. Grippy, yes, very (on the likes of Goodyear Eagles not the horrid standard fit Pirelli P6000s). Composed, yes, until you really start leaning on it. Agile, surprisingly so, but over light and too "darty" at the limit. This bothers me not a jot though - I have a sports bike for such fun - and I play the V70 to the aforementioned strengths at which it excels.
I note that you are interested in a non turbo 2.4; of course this is no speed machine and I find power delivery to be flat and unexciting (both 140 and 170 hp versions), but it will do the job as well as my V70 in every other respect.
|
Thanks for the replies everyone , much appreciated . Looks like you all say I should dump my Mondeo and get the Ovlov !
I totally understand what everyone is saying , but its still difficult to let go of the Ford .
|
I've been on both sides of the fence. I've owned 6 Mk1/Mk2 Mondeos and 1 V70 (a 2001 2.4).
Comments on the Volvo over the Ford:
+ points
It felt better put together
The design was more sophisticated (can't quantify it, it just seemed that way in various aspects)
The seats were awesome by any measure, especially compared to the Mondeo.
It was incredible for long distance driving
It was more versatile in the load bay than a Mondy estate, despite being slightly (but not much) smaller
Equipment levels were good
Built in back seat Cargo net that splits with the split fold seat+seat base was great. Could even use the net in the seats folder position
Fold flat passenger seat was very useful for long loads
Very attractive, handsome design
Great interior ergonomics
- points
Boot size isn't that great
Parts were expensive
Volvo dealers cost the earth, specialists not too bad though
Reliability was only so so
Performance was lacking until tuned by an ECU re-map
Up-front cost to buy was pricey and depreciation is still bad, even compared to a Ford
Some people get "funny" about Volvos and assume you suffer from "Volvo syndrome", IMO. Motorbikes were the worst, some attitude problems highlighted there.
The curve of the doors seems to collect door dings like nothing you have ever seen before, just observe other S60/V70/S80s and look for a battle scarred side profile. Then you'll see what I mean.
|
>The curve of the doors seems to collect door dings like nothing you have ever seen before
Unfortunately, I have to agree; try as I might to keep my V70 in showroom condition - even if if means parking miles away from where I want to be - it collects door dings more readily than anything I've owned beforehand. Dad's 1998 S80 owned from new is the same, and so was bro's V70 that he owned before the XC90 he has now. That these cars have a pronounced shoulder and beautiful concave flank instead of slab side doesn't help; both seem to act as magnifying glasses.
Interesting to read of reliablity; what went wrong? The three S and V models I write of above have been paragons of reliability. Really top drawer.
|
The ETM was playing up and I was frustrated with the lack of a real solution forthcoming from Volvo. That is what caused me to sell the car.
Plus, so many little (but expensive) things went wrong, I had to mark its card. e.g. intermittent door lock failure, burning engine oil, fake wood trim disintegrated, paintwork on roof side channels discoloured, engine mounts, clutch release bearing squeal (economically unfixable), glovebox latch failure, mirror switch cracked, collapsing seat base, regular resets of the canbus sub-systems to make the electrics work properly (free, thankfully).
So, not a disaster as such, but way below the standards I would expect from Volvo.
|
Sorry to read it TOB; not my family's experience.
Hand on heart in three and a half years and 34k miles I've stuck on four tyres, had the engine upper torque mount* replaced, and whether by coincidence or not, a few days after a GPS verified 158MPH on a stretch of autobahn (my V70 is not standard remember) replaced a failed turbo boost control solenoid (£40 and no tools needed). That's it! Oh; I forgot those door dings! Rrrrrr.
*I assume this is the "engine mount" you refer to?
This was definitely bad design attributable to a clever idea to reduce noise and vibration transmitted through the bulkhead.
In fact, the problem goes back to the 850 on which the five pot motors first appeared.
Thankfully it is now solved with a (retro-fittable) redesign; easy to tell if fitted as the rubber bush is square, not round.
BTW - one extra comment for anyone considering a S60/V70/S80; Front wheel drive, A long wheelbase, and wide engine limiting available lock means the turning circle is hoooooooooooooooge. For me the biggest design failing of the car. Not a reason not to buy the car, but something to be aware of if you regularly have to do tight manoeuvering. Visiting friends last week, I took seven bites driving *right* up to the hedge in front and garage behind to turn my car round. His RWD Beemer Three does it easily in three.
Cars with 225x45/17 tyres and what Volvo call the "lowered dynamic chassis" (like mine) are the worst affected as they having longer steering lock limiting stops fitted. Even so, full lock at anything above crawling speed causes the tyres to gently brush the inner wheel arch liner so Volvo have cut it very fine (stopping damage but not making a poor lock even poorer)
|
Yep, that's the mount I meant. Good to hear it's been sorted.
As for the turning circle, how I chuckle now when I spin my Vectra on a sixpence, or so it seems!! :-D
I keep meaning to ask a colleague if I can have a go in his 2.9 straight six S80..with an *even* wider engine the turning circle must be comical...
It's worth it for that glorious 5 cylinder engine sound though, isn't it? One big plus point I forgot to mention!
|
I agree that a bad turning circle isn't a reason on its own not to buy a car (though it was enough to persuade SWMBO that she didn't want another Honda Civic) - but it can be very annoying, especially for a Volvo driver who has come to a FWD Volvo from a 240. Those could turn on a sixpence.
FWD doesn't automatically mean a huge turning circle - the Audi A4 was brilliant, and that was a 2.5 TDI with fat tyres. The Honda Jazz is excellent too, but certainly not the (old-shape) Civic. Not sure about the new shape Civic but the appalling rear visibility IS a reason on its own for me not to buy one.
I'm sure someone more technically aware than I am will be along soon to explain why.
|
Agree; I learned to drive in LWL 980W, Dad's 1979 244DL with B21A engine and four on the floor.
Turn like a London taxi, it could, extreme negative camber on the front wheels in the process, and all!
|
The Audi A4 can turn sharply because its engine is mounted longitudinally, i.e. straight down the car. Very, very few FWD cars do this.
The Volvos use transverse mounting, i.e. left to right. As used in most FWD cars. It's not a problem for most cars, as narrow 4 cylinder and V6 engines are the norm. However, take a wide straight 5 or straight 6 and mount it that way...instant turning circle of a supertanker!!
Not the end of the world of course, at least the transverse mounting saves interior space and helps make it easier to avoid engine intrusion in the event of an accident.
|
You just beat me to it as I realised I hadn't commented on the five cylinder Audi comparison last night.
For info, Volvo have just released a 3.2 litre transverse straight six (debuting in the new S80) and have gone to great lengths to solve the length issue. Although still longer than the five this increased length is only just over 2mm, achieved by using redundant space above the gearbox to mount some ancilliaries (ie at the opposite end of the engine to where they would normally be found).
A very quick Google revealed wheels.fosfor.se/new-six-cylinder-engine-from-volv.../ with photo.
|
And idea whether this lovely engine will make it into the current S60/V70 before this range is (eventually?) replaced?
I can't say Ford have been bad for Volvo, I wonder if they would have had the money and enough demand for themselves to develop a unit like this?
I may yet be tempted back into a V70...I do get the impression the post 2002 cars have sorted most of the niggles.
|
achieved by using redundant space above the gearbox to mount some ancilliaries (ie at the opposite end of the engine to where they would normally be found).
An interesting engine, I wonder if it will be widely used by Ford.
The packaging principal is of course similar to that employed on motorcycles for years pioneered by Yamaha with the FZ750 in the mid 80's.
*Tenuous link time*
The 5 pot Volvos are either 10v or 20v, the other 20v car engines are the 1.8 ltr VAG 4cyl units with 5 valves/cyl, the FZ750 was the first production 5 valve/cyl engine, Yamaha have persisted with the 5v head though the YZR-M1 MotoGp bike has 4 valves/cyl and rumour has it that next year's YZF-R1 superbike will also drop the 5 valve design.
|
|
|
|
