 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Volvo Cars / August 2006Used Car: Volvo S80 vs. Acura TL?
My fiance is looking for a car. We have it down to two and would like some suggestions/opinions on which one to go with. 2003 Volve S80 - 44,000 miles 2003 Acura TL - 27,000 miles Price wise, they are going to be very comparable to each other so that isn't too much of an issue. My main concern is mechanical reliability. I have a lot of confidence in the Acura but am not sure about the Volvo (no experience w/ these cars). She LOVES driving the Volvo. Based on the extensive research (edmunds, msn, etc.) we've done so far when it comes to reliability and cost to maintain, the Acura gets a slight nod. I would like to keep this car for 5-10 years as it will be one of our two primary cars. Your thoughts? (We may be making this decision as soon as tomorrow 8/1) I also posted this in alt.autos and alt.autos.acura. -diro Acura -- all the way. JB > My fiance is looking for a car. We have it down to two and would like > some suggestions/opinions on which one to go with. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > -diro Unless the year of the Volvo is 199X and before, I do a thumbs down on newer Volvos. PS: I also happen to love Acuras. Honda is a GREAT company who seems to build BETTER cars as time goes by. ;-) Jamie > Acura -- all the way. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > > -diro > Unless the year of the Volvo is 199X and before, I do a thumbs down on > newer Volvos. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jamie Your arguments are superb and very usefull. Keep up the good work. Niels Am Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:19:50 +0200 schrieb Niels Bengaard: >> Unless the year of the Volvo is 199X and before, I do a thumbs down on >> newer Volvos. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Niels I do not see one single argument in this posting. This is not helpful at all. Where are the facts. ;-( *ROTFL* Joerg  SignatureErrare humanum est I would go with the Acura fir the same reasons as above. Additionally, the six cylinder volvo engines that are spec'd in the s80 seem to be prone to many more problems than the five cylinders. -Ed Acura gets my vote. Since the Ford takeover, Volvo has gone WAY down in quality. Everything seems nice on the outside, but it's just a Ford underneath. On the other hand, Acura has taken Honda's legendary quality and reliablity to the next level. Sorry, but Volvo just can't compare. do you want asian or european style and function? drive each one for 2 hrs straight and see what one is more comfy.... > Acura gets my vote. Since the Ford takeover, Volvo has gone WAY down in > quality. Everything seems nice on the outside, but it's just a Ford > underneath. > > On the other hand, Acura has taken Honda's legendary quality and > reliablity to the next level. Sorry, but Volvo just can't compare. Am 31 Jul 2006 10:55:40 -0700 schrieb Robert: > Acura gets my vote. Since the Ford takeover, Volvo has gone WAY down in > quality. Everything seems nice on the outside, but it's just a Ford > underneath. Crap! The discussion is S80 vs Acura. The S80 was developed long before the passenger car division of Volvo was sold to the Ford Group. There is not one single vital part produced or deliverd by Ford in a S80. Even the current V70 and S50/V50 are a Volvo-development. Volvo belongs to the Ford Premier Group which up to now has not very much to do with the Ford mass products. That may change in the future. > On the other hand, Acura has taken Honda's legendary quality and > reliablity to the next level. Sorry, but Volvo just can't compare. Facts and figures please. No unfounded prejudices! Jörg SignatureAprès moi le déluge > Facts and figures please. No unfounded prejudices! The fact is, I can't figure out how to get Volvo back to the way they used to be... ;-) > The fact is.... ...that we've decided to go with the 2003 Acura TL. the local dealer checked out the car and gave it their stamp of approval which is good enough for me. i'll take sheedish over asian any day...if you like asian..make sure to drive and consider the kia...they get goo counsumer ratings also....i personaly think they suck...but, thats just my personal opinion..... > > The fact is.... > > ...that we've decided to go with the 2003 Acura TL. the local dealer > checked out the car and gave it their stamp of approval which is good > enough for me. > i'll take sheedish over asian any day...if you like asian..make > sure to drive and consider the kia...they get goo counsumer > ratings also....i personaly think they suck...but, thats just my > personal opinion..... That would be European over Asian - like Fiat over Honda ;-) My daughter-in-law has a Kia. It wouldn't be my choice. She reports having put more money into non-warranty repairs than in car payments (so much for the 10 year / 100K mile bumper-to-bumper warranty!) Mike Come on ladies and gents. This was about a 2003 Volvo versus a 2003 Acura. Asian over Swedish is a bit ambiguous. I love my 1987 Volvo -- matter of fact, I forgot to tell a story: In 1987 I was a passenger in my best friend's mid 80's 240. We were driving about 50 miles an hour behind some friends of ours in a Mercedes sedan. They stopped suddenly to a halt, we weren't looking ahead and by the time we hit the brakes we slammed them in the rear at about 45 miles per hour. That was the first time in my life I didn't wear a seatbelt. I was in the front passenger seat and was able to protect my face with my arm as my head and elbow smashed into the windshield. I cracked the windshield, but did not have a mark on me. The 4 of us climbed out with his front end smashed in and the trunk smashed on the Mercedes. We all walked away without the scratch. The Volvo was claimed a total loss. No injuries in either car. That being said, I love my 1987 740. Prior to this car I owned a 2001 Honda Accord EX. To this day that Honda was the finest car I have ever owned. I sold it to save money to buy a house. While restoring my Volvo, I am driving a 2000 Hyundai Accent. While dependable, I would rather have an accident in the Volvo versus the Accent. That also being said, my Honda was a car that I drove to 75,000 miles before I sold it and I never planned on spending a dime on that car until 100,000 miles. I'd love an Acura, but I don't want to have a note right now. It would be great to drive, but my 740 is a dream to work on. I get satisfaction with its simplicity. Now, recent Volvos I fear aren't the everyday DIY stuff. I fear in 20 years they won't be the fixer uppers that our 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's models are. 2 cents. > There is not one single vital part produced or deliverd by Ford in a > S80. Even the current V70 and S50/V50 are a Volvo-development. > > Volvo belongs to the Ford Premier Group which up to now has not very > much to do with the Ford mass products. That may change in the future. Not true. The Jaguar X and S types are both derived from English Fords. The new Volvo S40/V50 are derived from the Ford Focus. >>On the other hand, Acura has taken Honda's legendary quality and >>reliablity to the next level. Sorry, but Volvo just can't compare. > > Facts and figures please. No unfounded prejudices! Just look at any of the independent surveys like Consumer Reports or JD Powers. Modern Volvos are easily bested by modern Acuras. John Bah. Volvo hasn't made a good car since they went FWD with the 850. I bought an 850 Turbo; it didn't handle well, lots of problems: sold it, and went back to a 244 Turbo...ahhhhhh. My wife's 740 just got rearended while stopped by a Mazda MX6. The jap car peeled open like a grape; minimal damage to the good old Volvo. Older Volvos are stoutly built. roll dem bones "Volvo hasn't made a good car since they went FWD with the 850" out of all the volvos I have owned...none of them have been "bad"... the newer ones were just a bit more expensive to maintain...no real lemons though...I now have a 1993 940t w/250,000 miles on it (btw: drive a asian car w/250,000 on it some time...if you can find one that is not a pick up truck)...and a 2000 s80t6 w/150,000 on the clock... > Bah. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > roll dem bones > out of all the volvos I have owned...none of them have been "bad"... > the newer ones were just a bit more expensive to maintain...no real > lemons though.. You're lucky. My 1996 850 Turbo TLA was a $37K lemon. Lots of rattles: drove me crazy. Lousy handling: it "lost it" at speeds and conditions that a competent sports sedan ("Hello, BMW") would have mastered. Sold it to a friend: developed tranny trouble, and at 60K or 70K the rear main went. She dumped it: good riddance. The newer cars may be better, I don't know. I do know I like the older 240 series the best: strong, easy to work on, lots of room, and reasonably reliable. > You're lucky. i guess.... > My 1996 850 Turbo TLA was a $37K lemon. > Lots of rattles: drove me crazy. i hate rattles, they drive me crazy...i would dumap any car that rattled much... > Lousy handling: it "lost it" at speeds and conditions that a competent > sports sedan ("Hello, BMW") would have mastered. i dumped my bmw's in 1986 for volvos...i feel the volvos are much better value for the $$... > Sold it to a friend: developed tranny trouble, and at 60K or 70K the > rear main went. She dumped it: good riddance. thats a drag...esp being a friend... > The newer cars may be better, I don't know. I do know I like the older > 240 series the best: strong, easy to work on, lots of room, and reasonably > reliable. after buying (brand new...some $38k, or so) a 2001 s80, i was thinking the same thing...the cost of the new volvo, maint, depreciation, etc drove me nuts...so i rid myself of it and picked up a 1986 240...nice, solid, cheap.....but not so roomy, confortable, and safe...after driving that a year, or so...on two lane highways (up here in n colorado & wy) passing oncomming 18 wheelers w/each of us going 70...i got to thinking....the older volvos are not so heavy, stable, and safe...so i "e bay'ed" the 240 for the 1993 940t i have now, (250,000 miles)...the 940 was a big technological jump in terms of safety, roll cages, an air bad, abs brakes, etc....i still have it, and it runs great...i did aprox $5k of performance mods to it, and it is a sweet, tight, little 4 door sedan...but, i still wanted a nicer, bigger volvo w/cmfort build it...i ended up getting a 2000 used s80t6 loaded (for that year, stickered at $42,000) w/142,000 miles on the clock for around $7k......the s80 is a nice sedan, lots of safety and comfort features...they are complex cars and i can't work on it much in my driveway, but...i have a great volvo mechanic (who helped me do all the 940 stuff) and the car has not required any major work...the s80 seems like a good car for the $$, so far...i tra and take care of my cars w/regular service, etc...but i do drive them hard...anyway...good luck w/whatever car you choose!!...there are many good cars out there, it is a matter of personal comfort, style, and $$... Am 1 Aug 2006 08:13:20 -0700 schrieb zencraps@comcast.net: >> out of all the volvos I have owned...none of them have been "bad"... >> the newer ones were just a bit more expensive to maintain...no real [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Lousy handling: it "lost it" at speeds and conditions that a competent > sports sedan ("Hello, BMW") would have mastered. I had a 1996 850 Turbo as well, was an excellent machine in any respect. I kept it until 85'000km on the clock in the year 2001. Superior over any other make indluding Mercedes as fas as security, performance and quality were concerned. Think about the fact that cars like Acura/Honda in the class over $ 50'000 have only successes in technically less demanding markets like Northamerica or in the country of origin. Elsewhere they are considered inferior to European makes. The only problem I ever had with in totall 5 Volvos since 92 was a failure of the control of the ABS. Volvo took over 50 % of the cost for the change. > Sold it to a friend: developed tranny trouble, and at 60K or 70K the > rear main went. > > She dumped it: good riddance. > > The newer cars may be better, I don't know. New Volvos are as solid as the old ones but much more sophisticated compared to the competition. In my wider family there are several high end cars of different manufacturers in use: I would never accept the amount of bugs and problems they have with their cars. > I do know I like the older 240 series the best: strong, easy to work > on, lots of room, and reasonably reliable. Your choice. By today's standards that is rather a car from the stone age. Joerg SignatureDe gustibus non est disputandum > Think about the fact that cars like Acura/Honda in the class over $ > 50'000 have only successes in technically less demanding markets like > Northamerica or in the country of origin. Elsewhere they are considered > inferior to European makes. And to think that many Europeans like to call Americans arrogant, interesting! Not so many decades ago y'all also thought that fine photographic equipment also only came from Europe. Ooops! John "Not so many decades ago y'all also thought that fine photographic equipment also only came from Europe. Ooops! " sure, and then...didn't a lot of good, cheap camera gear come out of "occupied japan" for a while? globalization has had a huge impact on mfg and labor/design of products....the would is "smaller", in those terms.... > > Think about the fact that cars like Acura/Honda in the class over $ > > 50'000 have only successes in technically less demanding markets like [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > John Last year my spouse and I purchased a '00 S80 2.9i and a '02 XC70 after being broadsided in our Nissan pick-up (our other vehicle was a Mitsubishi Mirage). Both Volvo's had about 65, 000 miles when we got them. Our Japanese vehicles were very reliable and inexpensive to repair, but we wanted vehicles that made us feel secure and every piece of research we found reinforced that. After living with the S80 and XC70, we still love the way they drive and their lack of pretentiousness, BUT, they are both much more expensive to maintain than we expected. The S80 (which is supposed to be less reliable than the 5-cylinder turbo engine cars) has been much more dependable and has only needed front suspension work. The XC70 has needed throttle-body management, Haldex (AWD), a gearlever replacement and now transmission work. We don't regret our decision, and love our Volvo's. We just wish they were more dependable and less expensive to maintain. > "Not so many decades ago y'all also thought that fine photographic > equipment also only came from Europe. Ooops! " [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > > John yep, i agree...the cost is sometimes a bit steep, but i fig it is an investment in persnl safety and comfort...the bmw's were even more to work on and maintain....the volvos seem like a nice, mid point.......... So, shifting gears....who here (on the volvo board) has personally driven and/or owned a asian auto w/over 250,000 miles on it? how did it do?....thanx...... > Last year my spouse and I purchased a '00 S80 2.9i and a '02 XC70 > after being broadsided in our Nissan pick-up (our other vehicle was a [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > > > > > John > yep, i agree...the cost is sometimes a bit steep, but i fig it is > an investment in persnl safety and comfort... I bought a 95 854 T new, and have put 145k Km on it. I still like it. In 1995, it was a much safer than average car, but the new Volvos are no longer safety leaders. It isn't that Volvos have become less safe -- it's that other marques have caught up (and why not -- it isn't rocket science to produce safe vehicles). New vehicles from Subaru, Audi and Honda/Acura perform better in crash tests than new vehicles from Volvo, ride and handles as well or better, and some of them are less expensive to maintain. The reasons why I bought a Volvo in 1995 no longer apply. My next car won't be a Volvo. Rick BZZZZT! Wrong answer! Other car companies can copy side airbags, but they don't have SIPS. They can copy the Inflatable Curtain, but theirs don't cover all three rows, or stay inflated during a roll-over. The XC90's anti-rollover technology is still a world exclusive. In short, advertising works, especially for those who would rather buy a four-wheeled refrigerator than a car that might actually be fun to drive, and still get you there alive. Ever wonder about why the IIHS doesn't explain their testing properly? They claim their 'offset testing' looks for passenger space intrusion, but it's really measuring the amount of damage to the car -- more damage, lower ratings. Remember, their first name is 'Insurance,' as in 'Insurance Industry.' You know, those people who would rather have ultra-stiff structures that transfer dangerous levels of transient forces directly into the passengers' bodies (because you *know* soft-tissue damage is difficult to prove) so they can save a few dollars per repair. That's why other car companies get those 'fabulous' ratings from the IIHS. You'll have a separated shoulder and a crushed pelvis, but hey, the car will come through in great shape! Volvo has perfected the concept of crumple zones and non-intrusive engineering, which ticks off the insurance companies no end, because the car may be destroyed, but the passengers will live to buy another Volvo. Go to Volvo's website and visit the section titled, "A Volvo Saved My Life." Funny, I don't see anything like that on Honda's website. It's easy to spell 'safety,' but a little harder to actually make it work. Honda doesn't have Accident Response teams that go out and investigate real-world collisions to make their cars more crash-worthy. Soichiro Honda (of blessed memory) was an engineer first, and his creations sometimes forgot the human factor (their first set of Grand Prix cars were a perfect example -- extraordinary engineering, but a major handful to drive). One of Volvo's founders had a nurse for a wife, and after hearing several stories of horrific injuries suffered in auto accidents, declared that the human factors would always come first. Primary in those factors are safety and comfort. My '87 745 TGA has 'em in spades, even after 250,000 hard miles. So did the '94 850 Turbo we traded on the '01 V70XC. And allow me to share just how wonderfully all-day comfy the seats are in my new XC90 V8. I've driven hundreds of different cars over the years, but I've never found anything that combines the balance, comfort, durability, and unique engineering of Volvos. For my money, there are no better cars. Perfection has been attained, the rest is just hype and noise. Enjoy your appliance car, fella. You deserve it. >>yep, i agree...the cost is sometimes a bit steep, but i fig it is >>an investment in persnl safety and comfort... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Rick Duke....some good info there...well, everyone knows asia is a "master" at copying products..."it's what they do best"..... i can't articulate why exactaly, but volvo seems (to me), to be best "bang for the buck"....i can tell when i work on them, size of bolts, guage of steel, wire connectors...to name a few items....that's not to say they don't have their ocassional problems...just as any boat, plane, computer, etc....of all my "machines"...i use my car the most....by far.... > BZZZZT! Wrong answer! Other car companies can copy side airbags, but > they don't have SIPS. They can copy the Inflatable Curtain, but theirs [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > > > Rick > BZZZZT! Wrong answer! You didn't compare the recorded crash forces on test dummies in tested cars. Let's compare an Acura TSX with a Volvo S60 -- they're within 50 lb of one another in weight. In a frontal crash, the Acura protects the dummy better than the Volvo. Acura TSX http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/3430.html Curb Weight: 3305 Frontal Crash Driver Passenger 5 stars 5 stars Head Injury Criterion 268 214 Chest Deceleration (g's) 42 43 Femur Load l/r1 (lbs) 187/214 805/350 Volvo S60 http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/3601.html Curb Weight: 3355 Frontal Crash Driver Passenger 4 stars 4 stars Head Injury Criterion 502 399 Chest Deceleration (g's) 52 47 Femur Load l/r1 (lbs) 810/687 504/703 In a side crash, they're about the same. Acura TSX Side Crash Front seat Rear seat 5 stars 5 stars Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) 49 57 Pelvis Deceleration2 (g's) 67 73 Volvo S60 Side Crash Front seat Rear seat 5 stars 4 stars Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) 52 67 Pelvis Deceleration2 (g's) 64 57 Check it out for yourself. You'll see that the Volvos are still very safe, but no safer than most competing cars. Rick Am Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:27:31 GMT schrieb John Horner: >> Think about the fact that cars like Acura/Honda in the class over $ >> 50'000 have only successes in technically less demanding markets like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And to think that many Europeans like to call Americans arrogant, > interesting! Why arrogant? This is an oberservation. In Switzerland, the market with the highest per capita income and no car industry the market shares are as follows: 45 % Germany 25 % Japan and Korea 15 % French <5 % Italy ca. 5 % Sweden < 2 % USA Rest: Others I'm currently in the USA and I drive a new rented Chevy Trailblazer. This car is of such a lousy quality and confirms what I experienced in the past. This car has such a low level of sophistication and is guzzling gas at scaring rate. What the world really does not need anymore are American gas guzzlers. > Not so many decades ago y'all also thought that fine photographic > equipment also only came from Europe. Ooops! What I must admit ist that the Europeans and in particular the Germans missed the development of hybrid cars. In that respect Toyota is outstanding with their model range. Ireally hope that the oi price once more doubles than we will see which car industry will survive. Certainly not the American which is technically bankrupt anyway, particularly GM. > John Joerg SignatureDe gustibus non est disputandum |
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.