 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Volvo Cars / January 2006s60 vs. BMW?
I've got an '01 s60 2.4 that I'm very happy with. If things go well, I'm considering a new car. I'm told the BMW 3 series is the cat's meow in this price range. But from what I've seen, I like the Volvo's styling and safety features better. BMW might have a better interior. Any thoughts, experience, on this? I might be going the s60 "R" route, in which case the BMW M series might be the better comparison. At the least, I would want to go with AWD, and standard transmission. Also, does anyone know if major body changes are due for the s60 in '07? I see the convertible is coming out next year, which could be a possibility. Paul BMW is rear wheel drive, which is more fun. Volvos are front-biased and front-heavy due to the engine/tranny design (transverse front). I'd go for the BMW. Actually, I'd go for an 05 BMW, since the 06 3-series has expensive run-flats and no spare (although that can be remedied). -Andrew > I've got an '01 s60 2.4 that I'm very happy with. If things go > well, I'm considering a new car. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Paul If your primary concern is the quality of the driving experience, get the BMW. They handle so much better than an S60 as to make a a no comparison situation. If a combindation of comfort, luxury, quality and resale value really floats your boat, then check out an Acura TL before you put your hard earned money on the line. Another interesting choice would be the '06 VW Passat which you can get in front or all wheel drive. VW has had some reliability problems in recent years, but so has Volvo. IMO the S60 is not a competitive vehicle in it's class today. John > Another interesting choice would be the '06 VW Passat which you can get > in front or all wheel drive. VW has had some reliability problems in > recent years, but so has Volvo. 05 Passat has better weight distribution and AWD system (Torsen that drives all 4 wheels all the time vs Haldex on the new Passat). Plus the new Passat is only available with AWD if you get the VR6 and slushbox (but that'll likely change since this is the 1st year or a new model). No diesel yet either, and when it comes, the DSG is only going on the diesel, gas models are stuck with either a slusheematic or a regular manual. -Andrew > I've got an '01 s60 2.4 that I'm very happy with. If things go > well, I'm considering a new car. Why if the '01 is still ok? The 97 850 my wife drives has 145K, my 94 940 turbo S/W just flipped over to 180,000. > I'm told the BMW 3 series is the cat's meow in this price range. > But from what I've seen, I like the Volvo's styling and safety > features better. BMW might have a better interior. The BMW drives much much better, but the Volvo is a bit more comfortable. The 2006 BMW has run flat tires and am a late adopter--YMMV :) The BMW will retain loads of value the Volvo will have it's value drop like a brick. The BMW is quite simply the finest sports sedan in the world today as it has been since the 1960's when they invented the category. The Volvo is kind of in a class of it's own, but the hell if I would pay 40 large for one. Since you mention 4WD you obviously are quite willing to compromise quite a bit for reality. If I might be so bold may I make a few suggestions: Saab 9-5 GM can't sell em, so they are still discounted quite heavily, but they are like Volvo their own class to a degree, and will lose value fast. Subaru Legacy GT AWD, loads of fun, but not a luxury class vehicle Acura TSX Loads of fun, very very nice, not too expensive, very reliable. FWD, no AWD available. Acura TL Near luxury with loads of features for the money. A great car. Ford Explorer They just redesigned them, and for some reason they just can't sell em. If you can accept the many sacrifices it will require it's a good value. I would not buy one in a million years, but they are almost giving them away! Used Caddy Yeah what are you crazy? Well, no they are world class quality and do not hold their value--a lot of luxo barge for the money. A place in NJ right across the river from Philly has tons of 1-4 year old caddies for tres low bucks--Kerbeck on rt 73 Palmyra, NJ. Chevy Impala/Malibu Both are quite a lot of car for the money, and they are built quite well, they also drive well. Take a test drive some time--no cachet but low low price. Chrysler 300 RWD, awd available. Love it or hate it, it's the last E class Mercedes Benz for less then 30 decently equipped with the 6, $2-5k more with the hemi. Used 5 series BMW. I hate hate hate I drive--I drove a few bimmers with it and I do not like it. The last 5 series I think 2004? It is the panicle of automotive engineering to date--the 530 is sporty powerful safe and not too bad on gas. BMW certified used is a good program. and the ultimate cop out car Lexus es330 The ultimate Camry, and quite a very very very nice car it is. No fun whatsoever to drive. The list would not be complete without the Infiniti 35--powerful, RWD but no 330I, a lot less money, and AWD is available and they are not $elling well. There is a front wheel drive version for a little less called the Nissan Maxima BTW... > Any thoughts, experience, on this? I might be going the s60 "R" > route, in which case the BMW M series might be the better [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Paul A great list of alternatives Paul. The S60 simply does not cut it against the current crop of competing vehicles, which probably has a lot to do with it's poor sales of late and crummy resale value. Volvo made a big mistake when they replaced the 850/S70 with a smaller interior vehicle. I was shopping a few years ago to replace my '96 850 and found the rear seat legroom of the S60 to be completely unacceptable for full sized adults on a long drive. The S60 styling also gave up a great deal of interior functionality in order to do the heavy curved roof line and sculptured sides look. Appearance over capability is not what the Volvo brand used to mean at all. Remember "form follows function". Volvo has intentionally forgotten that mantra. John yep...it took my wife and i seconds to sit in the back of the s60...then move to the rear seat in the s80....loads of space difference between the two... i had a bmw 5 series before moving to volvos... the s60 and 5 series don't really compaire (imho) ...i would put the bmw 5 series against the s80.... two very different sedans... it all depends on your likes and driving style....both are nice sedans... and, more important...your mechanic and/or dealer service department...loaner cars, etc... > yep...it took my wife and i seconds to > sit in the back of the s60...then move to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and, more important...your mechanic and/or dealer > service department...loaner cars, etc... You know what? I don't care about a loaner car. If they just fix it the FIRST time. i like the fact my volvo dealer puts me in a free loaner volvo when mine are being serviced...just a nice little touch...one of the reasons i moved from bmw to volvo.... oh yea, of course, it is nice to have problems fixed on the 1st trip in.... > A great list of alternatives Paul. The S60 simply does not cut it > against the current crop of competing vehicles, which probably has a lot [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > John John... Back in the fifties, when I first heard a radio commercial about Volvo when my mother was driving me to school, (On the Dick Whittinghill show in Los Angeles), and to the sixties to early seventies, Volvo used to preach about the legroom and comfort because seven out of ten Swedes were over six-feet tall. My, how things have changed. In Thailand a few years ago, I met several Thai's who were over six feet due to nutrition, and maybe a burgeoning middle class able to afford "Food". But, Ford, who does not actually "Own" Volvo...they only have the largest outstanding number of shares... has taken a different approach. Ford wants to make more and more air-bags in smaller and smaller cars. I'm waiting for an air-bag that goes up my a.s for a prostate massage. What I really want is an Austrailian Falcon with a 351 Cleveland. > John... > Back in the fifties, when I first heard a radio commercial about Volvo [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Ford wants to make more and more air-bags in smaller and smaller cars. > I'm waiting for an air-bag that goes up my a.s for a prostate massage. The s60 was *completely* designed by Volvo. Ford has nothing to do with its style whatsoever nor its packaging. That was a Volvo decision as the car was designed and finalized before Ford purchased Volvo. Volvo cars from the s40 on may share with other Ford brands. But they may be Mazda, Jaguar, or Rover. Ben > What I really want is an Austrailian Falcon with a 351 Cleveland. > A great list of alternatives Paul. The S60 simply does not cut it > against the current crop of competing vehicles, which probably has a lot [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > what the Volvo brand used to mean at all. Remember "form follows > function". Volvo has intentionally forgotten that mantra. The s60 is a way better car than the s70 in terms of ride refinement and body structure and also aerodynamics and to a large degree dynamic qualities (handling, braking, etc.). It was a hot seller for a long time and is has been a success for Volvo. Volvo owners were asking for less boxy cars and the s60 is considered stylish, arguably Volvo's best looking car. True, it has a terrible turning circle and compromised interior space and visibility. Form follows function no longer applies in the European auto world. Mercedes CLS could not have been built in the 80s with its ridiculous small side windows and sunken-in feeling interior. I think it is truly ugly, reminds of the other hideous Daimler -Benz product, the Chrysler 300. I don't like the small windows and cut off look yet the CLs is being called gorgeous and beautiful by just about any reviewer reviewing it and plenty of its owners and the 300 is absolutely popular. Both cars, IMO, have a disproportionate amount of body vs. window area. I think the s60 is a good car. It's a supremely comfortable car that is due to be redesigned in 2008. Hopefully, Volvo will address its shortcomings: poor rear room, blind spots and so-so visibility, terrible turning circle--the major complaints about the s60. Ben > John > The 2006 BMW has run flat tires and am a late adopter--YMMV :) That can be corrected. Just get an extra wheel and tire to use as a fullsized spare. And carry a light hydraulic jack, handle, and sockets. > The BMW is quite simply the finest sports sedan in the world today as it has > been since the 1960's when they invented the category. IMHO, the BMWs have gotten worse since the last generation. No spare on even the base 3-series? Ugh. No temperature or oil pressure gauges. Ughx3. (Though both of those problems can be fixed by the aftermarket for $300 or so) > Subaru Legacy GT AWD, loads of fun, but not a luxury class vehicle GT wagon seems not to be available with manual in 06. Outback XT is though. I think they're about to discontinue the Legacy GTs since sales are slow so they're cutting back on versions. > Ford Explorer They just redesigned them, and for some reason they just > can't sell em. I wonder why? Could it be that gas is expensive and the trucks have lost their "truck" aspect? 4-wheel independent suspension in what started out in a work truck. *Sigh* (Yes, the Hummer also has 4WIS, but it has portal hubs to raise the CV axles high above the road). > Used Caddy Yeah what are you crazy? Well, no they are world class > quality and do not hold their value--a lot of luxo barge for the money. A Um, the CTS is *not* a luxo-barge in any conventional sense of the term. Heck, you can even get it in stick (stick is mandatory on the CTS-V, IIRC). Caddy has changed a lot over the last 10 years! > Chevy Impala/Malibu Both are quite a lot of car for the money, and they > are built quite well, they also drive well. Take a test drive some time--no Front wheel driven garbage. GM did a bad thing when they discontinued the old Caprice/Impala. We can only hope to see more Holden-based RWD vehicles in the US in 2007 or 8. Supposedly, the "Zeta" program is back on track. > Chrysler 300 RWD, awd available. Love it or hate it, it's the last E > class Mercedes Benz for less then 30 decently equipped with the 6, $2-5k I'd go for the Magnum or Charger instead. Charger is better looking, Magnum has practicality going for it. > Used 5 series BMW. I hate hate hate I drive--I drove a few bimmers with > it and I do not like it. The last 5 series I think 2004? It is the panicle Thank you. So I'm not the only one who thinks BMW is on an unnecessary techno-w.nk? Cheers, Andrew > > The 2006 BMW has run flat tires and am a late adopter--YMMV :) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Ughx3. (Though both of those problems can be fixed by the aftermarket for > $300 or so) This is a discussion not a flame, so don't take this like a flame pls. What other sports sedan is better then a 330? > > Subaru Legacy GT AWD, loads of fun, but not a luxury class vehicle > > GT wagon seems not to be available with manual in 06. Outback XT is > though. I think they're about to discontinue the Legacy GTs since sales > are slow so they're cutting back on versions. Perhaps, perhaps not, in any case the GT is a real winner, albeit not a luxo-car. > > Ford Explorer They just redesigned them, and for some reason they just > > can't sell em. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in a work truck. *Sigh* (Yes, the Hummer also has 4WIS, but it has > portal hubs to raise the CV axles high above the road). Exactly why its a potential replacement--the 4 wheel independant suspension and the low price of entry.... > > Used Caddy Yeah what are you crazy? Well, no they are world class > > quality and do not hold their value--a lot of luxo barge for the money. A > > Um, the CTS is *not* a luxo-barge in any conventional sense of the term. > Heck, you can even get it in stick (stick is mandatory on the CTS-V, > IIRC). Caddy has changed a lot over the last 10 years! The Deville is a luxo barge, albeit one I find looking better and better as the big 50 gets bigger and bigger in the windshield. > > Chevy Impala/Malibu Both are quite a lot of car for the money, and they > > are built quite well, they also drive well. Take a test drive some time--no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > vehicles in the US in 2007 or 8. Supposedly, the "Zeta" program is back > on track. I disagree. Well built good driving unexciting transportation with much more nice stuff then you ever thought a chev would ever have. > > Chrysler 300 RWD, awd available. Love it or hate it, it's the last E > > class Mercedes Benz for less then 30 decently equipped with the 6, $2-5k > > I'd go for the Magnum or Charger instead. Charger is better looking, > Magnum has practicality going for it. Matter of opinion, the charger is way too in your face for me, the 300 is already rather more ...assertive then I would like, but it's a good car, and I think a very good alternative to the s60. > > Used 5 series BMW. I hate hate hate I drive--I drove a few bimmers with > > it and I do not like it. The last 5 series I think 2004? It is the panicle > > Thank you. So I'm not the only one who thinks BMW is on an unnecessary > techno-w.nk? I drove a 2006 530i on the interstae. 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 (all MPH) The stuff went by faster, but no more wind noise, no weird vibrations, no steering getting all light. I would not buy one, but you must give BMW their due, it truly is a wonderful vehicle. NO, Andrew...I don't think that you're the only one by far. Particularly my neighbors who just bought their sixteen year old son a 5 series Bimmer sedan. I think that they actually have a massive AEtna policy out on his life. So much life. So little time > Thank you. So I'm not the only one who thinks BMW is on an unnecessary > techno-w.nk? > > Cheers, > Andrew You remind me of why I've been kicking myself in the a.s for about ten years. My mom had a 750iL...an 89...that I sold right after she expired in 2004...It only had 6,000 miles. The BMW, not my mother...She went around the world about twelve times in her lifetime, beginning in 1915, and the last time was with the help of British Air and Air France on the Concorde. >>I've got an '01 s60 2.4 that I'm very happy with. If things go >>well, I'm considering a new car. [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] >> >>Paul > The BMW will retain loads of value the Volvo will have it's value drop like > a brick. I've been thinking about this comment off and on for a few days. Seems to me that the best value on the road today is a used Volvo. That's how I got my s60, and from a friend in the business, and I got a steal. I just wish I got the R right off the bat. Paul *Merry Christmas* Paul...your right...there have been some excellent used volvos on the mkt in the last 2 years or so. (i picked up a nice s80)...the r's are nice...built "to go" straight from the factory...heck, if you can pick up a nice, used volvo @ a 50% discount off of sticker, or so..... that (to me) is a value .... as long as is/was maintained .... don't forget, the bmw's cost much more than volvos to begin with.... > I've got an '01 s60 2.4 that I'm very happy with. If things go > well, I'm considering a new car. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Paul Thanks everyone for all the great replies thus far. Seems like the R owners like their vehicles, as evidenced over at Swedespeed forums and some review sites like yahoo auto and epinions. I'm partial to the s60's interior comfort and exterior looks, and the safety angle. The BMW's looks don't do much for me at all, nor does the price. I'd hate to pay a conformity premium. As I said, I'm happy with my s60, but I'd like more power, a stick, and Volvo's intelligent 4wd (though I really wish it favored the rear wheels; I also hate the car's obscenely wide turning radius). I also abhor BMW's I-drive. I guess the only thing is to test drive the two units, and pray on it, if I can find an R sitting on a lot. Anyway, thanks for the replies, from which I'm learning. Keep them coming and I'll keep reading. Paul > As I said, I'm happy with my s60, but I'd like more power, a > stick, and Volvo's intelligent 4wd (though I really wish it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Anyway, thanks for the replies, from which I'm learning. Keep > them coming and I'll keep reading. There are many good choices on the market from a lot of companies. Don't limit your test driving to just Volvo and BMW. John > As I said, I'm happy with my s60, but I'd like more power, a > stick, and Volvo's intelligent 4wd (though I really wish it > favored the rear wheels; I also hate the car's obscenely wide > turning radius). Kind of ironic since the RWD Volvos were famous for their tight turning radii. Never ceases to amaze me how easily I can manipulate my big 740 in a tight parking garage. > Kind of ironic since the RWD Volvos were famous for their tight turning > radii. Never ceases to amaze me how easily I can manipulate my big 740 > in a tight parking garage. The 850 wasn't much worse if at all. Ford has thrown function out the window in favor of style after acquiring Volvo, unfortunately -Andrew > > Kind of ironic since the RWD Volvos were famous for their tight turning > > radii. Never ceases to amaze me how easily I can manipulate my big 740 > > in a tight parking garage. > > The 850 wasn't much worse if at all. Ford has thrown function out the > window in favor of style after acquiring Volvo, unfortunately I find my 850 has an annoyingly large turning radius. Rick >>>Kind of ironic since the RWD Volvos were famous for their tight turning >>>radii. Never ceases to amaze me how easily I can manipulate my big 740 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Rick Hmm does anyone have the actual specs? Now I'm curious. > >>>Kind of ironic since the RWD Volvos were famous for their tight turning > >>>radii. Never ceases to amaze me how easily I can manipulate my big 740 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Hmm does anyone have the actual specs? Now I'm curious. http://apps.volvocars.us/ownersdocs/1997/1997_850/97850_905.htm Turning circle (between curbs) 33.5 ft. (10.2 m) Turbo-charged models 34.8 ft. (10.6 m) http://apps.volvocars.us/ownersdocs/1994/1994_940/94940_9_1.html#specs Turning circle, between curbs 32.5 ft. (9.9 m) Bbbut it seems so much more...:) All front-wheel drive cars have a larger turning circle than rear wheel drive cars. 850 is FWD 740/940s etc are RWD. All the best, Peter. 700/900/90 Register Keeper, Volvo Owners Club (UK). >> >>>Kind of ironic since the RWD Volvos were famous for their tight >> >>>turning [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Bbbut it seems so much more...:) > All front-wheel drive cars have a larger turning circle than rear wheel > drive cars. 850 is FWD 740/940s etc are RWD. > > All the best, Peter. The point is that Volvo went to great engineering lengths to minimize this on the 850 and kept the increase from the 240/740/940 to 850 at only one foot (32.5 -> 33.5). Then on the S60 they blew out over another another five feet to a final spec of 38.7 feet. John >> All front-wheel drive cars have a larger turning circle than rear >> wheel drive cars. 850 is FWD 740/940s etc are RWD. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > only one foot (32.5 -> 33.5). Then on the S60 they blew out over > another another five feet to a final spec of 38.7 feet. Is it because of the bigger tires? The s60 does hold the road well. It may also has to do with how wide the car is vs. the overall length. Ben > John > >> All front-wheel drive cars have a larger turning circle than rear > >> wheel drive cars. 850 is FWD 740/940s etc are RWD. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Is it because of the bigger tires? The s60 does hold the road well. It > may also has to do with how wide the car is vs. the overall length. The S60 isn't any longer. Tire width is critical. The S60R has a 42.7 ft turning radius because of the tires. The S60T5 is only 39 ft.  SignatureCheers, 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 >>>> All front-wheel drive cars have a larger turning circle than rear >>>> wheel drive cars. 850 is FWD 740/940s etc are RWD. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The S60 isn't any longer. Tire width is critical. The S60R has a 42.7 > ft turning radius because of the tires. The S60T5 is only 39 ft. Thanks for that interesting bit of info. the R is now totally out of consideration. 39' is quite bad enough; even it is almost a deal-killer. Paul > http://apps.volvocars.us/ownersdocs/1997/1997_850/97850_905.htm > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Bbbut it seems so much more...:) 2004 Volvo S60 2.4 39.0 Ouch. A tangible pain in parking lots, and sometimes on the road. p. > Hmm does anyone have the actual specs? Now I'm curious. According to this site: http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/turn_circles.htm The original 850 was specified at a turning circle of 33.5' compared to a 240s 32.5'. Keeping the increase down to one foot while going from rear to front wheel drive was a real engineering accomplishment. According to the data at www.kbb.com, the S60 pushed the number up to 38.7', and increase of over five feet from the 850 and six feet more than the benchmark 240. When turning around in tight corners or parallel parking on city streets the more limited wheel angles available are quite a nuisance. John I think I might have a very nice idea-- Mazdaspeed 6 275HP 280 LB Feet 6 speed manual Direct fuel injection All wheel drive 19/25 EPA MPG ~$31K Idea 2 I think a bit too boy racer-y but... Mitsu lancer evo... The Mazda 6 might be the one, a factory hot rod in the idem of the BMW M3! >> Kind of ironic since the RWD Volvos were famous for their tight turning >> radii. Never ceases to amaze me how easily I can manipulate my big 740 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -Andrew I thought the s60 was designed before Ford took over. p. >>>Kind of ironic since the RWD Volvos were famous for their tight turning >>>radii. Never ceases to amaze me how easily I can manipulate my big 740 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > p. Indeed, I don't think Ford deserves much of the blame for Volvo's change of direction in the past 10 years. John >>Kind of ironic since the RWD Volvos were famous for their tight turning >>radii. Never ceases to amaze me how easily I can manipulate my big 740 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -Andrew Ford doesn't "Own" Volvo...Just the largest outstanding number of shares. If the board of directors were smart rather than "bought off"...Well, what can I say? Could the Swedes be bought off with still more medical care? >> As I said, I'm happy with my s60, but I'd like more power, a >> stick, and Volvo's intelligent 4wd (though I really wish it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > radii. Never ceases to amaze me how easily I can manipulate my big 740 > in a tight parking garage. One of the things Volvo did with the 850 design was to produce one of the tightest turning radius FWD vehicles of it's size ever made. This was part of the reason I bought my first 850 back in '94. Volvo literature of the time made a big deal of the special CV joints, etc. which were used to accomplish this. Somehow with the S60 the engineering direction changed in many ways. Clearly the old Volvo design/engineering ethic which put a priority on functionality is now sadly gone. Why is it that every company is chasing the young/hip/stylish consumer while at the same time the income and wealth of the developed world keeps skewing ever upwards in age? John >>> As I said, I'm happy with my s60, but I'd like more power, a >>> stick, and Volvo's intelligent 4wd (though I really wish it [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > John Probably because the young/hip market is huge. They may not be wealthy but they can buy it on credit. Not the way I want to live but credit seems to be the American way. I've not yet had a chance to drive an 850, I didn't realize they were so much better in that respect. I wonder if there's anything beyond cost savings that resulted in the newer cars having such a wide turning radius. > Why is it that every company is chasing the young/hip/stylish consumer > while at the same time the income and wealth of the developed world > keeps skewing ever upwards in age? Two reasons. First, the y/h/s consumers are willing to spend a much higher proportion of their income (and to go into debt) to buy *image products*. Second, baby-boomers-in-denial about their real age (I-d) still think they're "young" until they stand in front of the mirror. (Hence the dramatic increases in cosmetic surgery.) Some of the ads aimed at the y/h/s consumer are designed to resonate with b-b-i-d, too. Rick >>> As I said, I'm happy with my s60, but I'd like more power, a >>> stick, and Volvo's intelligent 4wd (though I really wish it [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > John Well, I'm probably going to be working until I'm in the grave. So much for the U.S. of A. rebuilding Europe through the Marshall Plan. Us taxpayers repaying it all, you know. My cousin in Amsterdam's father got about fifty-grand after the war. Guess where he put it? Switzerland! Meanwhile, my father, a gifted surgeon, had to beg for "gas stamps" to drive from Boston to California. Oh, and by the by... Anyone who wants to buy official WW2 gas stamp booklets can contact me. I have tons of them ...From AFTER he got to the West Coast. > > As I said, I'm happy with my s60, but I'd like more power, a > > stick, and Volvo's intelligent 4wd (though I really wish it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > radii. Never ceases to amaze me how easily I can manipulate my big 740 > in a tight parking garage. Oh YES! going from my 940 to my wife's 850 is quite a difference! > Kind of ironic since the RWD Volvos were famous for their tight turning > radii. Never ceases to amaze me how easily I can manipulate my big 740 > in a tight parking garage. Reason #2352 why Andrew Szafran hates FWD cars :) Their turning radii are usually horrible due to CV joint angle limitations and the fact that a wide engine/tranny unit blocks wheel articulation. -Andrew >> As I said, I'm happy with my s60, but I'd like more power, a >> stick, and Volvo's intelligent 4wd (though I really wish it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > radii. Never ceases to amaze me how easily I can manipulate my big 740 > in a tight parking garage. Isn't it a shame. Tight turning circles used to be a selling point with Volvo. My 760 turns tighter than my wife's considerably smaller s40 (by about 3 feet). Ben > > I've got an '01 s60 2.4 that I'm very happy with. If things go > > well, I'm considering a new car. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Paul Stick, AWD, Power. Subary Legacy GT. At least give it a look. Audi A4 v6 Quatro. You should give it a test drive. Audi $4 Quatro For me the I drive is a killer, but a AWD BMW 3 or 5 series XI What about a s40T5 AWD? I think that might be your answer, almost as much room as the s60, and very nice! Conformity Program????? Do you still live in a Soviet country that we don't know about? Or maybe Sweden? Fill us in. >>I've got an '01 s60 2.4 that I'm very happy with. If things go >>well, I'm considering a new car. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Paul > Conformity Program????? > Do you still live in a Soviet country that we don't know about? [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> >> Paul Try "conformity premium", as I wrote. Merry Christmas |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.