 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Volvo Cars / September 2007V50 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, Wooly schrieb: > AFAICT the main difference aside from cargo capacity is gas mileage > ratings - the V70 is rated for 20mpg city versus 22mpg for the V50. Sorry, but that's compairing apples to oranges... V50 and V70 are completly different cars, and both have not just one engine available. > I'm leaning toward the V50 for a variety of reasons but some > members of the household think that SIZE MATTERS *g* If size matters, go for the V70. Roland > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sorry, but that's compairing apples to oranges... 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 schrieb: >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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  SignatureReclaim your inbox! Thunderbird makes emailing safer, faster, and easier than ever before with the industry's best implementations of features such as intelligent spam filters, built-in RSS reader, quick search, and much more. http://www.mozilla-europe.org/de/products/thunderbird/ > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > deciding factor for us. Whichever we end up with will be certified used > from the dealer, with some portion of warranty remaining. 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. > Cargo capacity, ride, room for driver and passenger, comfort of seats > are a few differences. 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. > > Cargo capacity, ride, room for driver and passenger, comfort of seats > > are a few differences. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > deciding factor for us. Whichever we end up with will be certified used > from the dealer, with some portion of warranty remaining. 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. Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote: > The V70 is much more stable and the crash protection is much better. 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. 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://rhodyman.net/homevo.html > 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] The S40 isn't particularly good in side impact crashes. Java > pighash@aol.com says... > > The V70 has 5-star ratings for everything except rollover. There it has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > The S40 isn't particularly good in side impact crashes. The S40 has 5-star rating for side impact crashes. There isn't a higher rating. 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://rhodyman.net/homevo.html > > pighash@aol.com says... > > > The V70 has 5-star ratings for everything except rollover. There it has [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The S40 has 5-star rating for side impact crashes. Not in IIHS crash tests, where it rates "acceptable" rather than "good". http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=265 Java > > > pighash@aol.com says... > > > > 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] > > > The S40 isn't particularly good in side impact crashes. > pighash@aol.com says... > > The S40 has 5-star rating for side impact crashes. <Espressopithecus<javaman@espresso.org>> wrote: > Not in IIHS crash tests, where it rates "acceptable" rather than "good". > http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=265 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 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://rhodyman.net/homevo.html > > > > pighash@aol.com says... > > > > > The V70 has 5-star ratings for everything except rollover. There it [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > 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 > In article <pighash-109F06.11550404092...@news.isp.giganews.com>, > pigh...@aol.com says...> The V70 has 5-star ratings for everything except rollover. There it has [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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. |
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.