Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Volvo S60

14041434546102

Comments

  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,438
    but what was the difference new on those? doesn't look to me like there is a big difference in price of the 2.5t vs. t5, so as long as the resale is the same percentage on both cars, what is the difference?

    if everybody bought a car ONLY worrying about resale and customer base, then we'd all be driving Hondas.

    Absolutely, the incentives on Volvos is a big part of the resale problem.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    Difference in MSRP between a 2.5T and a T5M is 3675, plus another $1200 if you want an auto T5.

    Difference new $4875, difference used $1000 maybe more.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,438
    I think you talked me into a Honda. :(

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    A fine car till you get hit.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,438
    I'm sorry, but you just lost some respect from me. What are you talking about? Do you know that the 2003 S60 only got 4 stars from the NHTSA for both driver and passenger frontal impact? The Accord received 5 in both categories. Are you just spouting Volvo safety propaganda without actually knowing the facts?

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • hmurphyhmurphy Posts: 278
    It's true. Per the NHTSA, the 2003 Accord has better driver and front passenger impact ratings than the 2003 S60. The side impact ratings are the same for both cars. The Volvo has a better rollover rating, however, though that's probably not a big issue with either car.

    Also, per the IIHS, the 2003 Accord has more "Good" ratings across the board than the S60.

    While Volvos have always been very safe, many manufacturers are catching up. You can't assume that a Volvo is always the safest option anymore.
  • amazonamazon Posts: 293
    Honda never has put the emphasis on safety the way Volvo has- regardless of IIHS ratings.
  • hmurphyhmurphy Posts: 278
    Well, Honda seems to be putting enough emphasis on safety for the Accord to outpace the S60.

    While Volvo does have a strong history of safety, it's the present that matters.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,438
    gotta agree with Murphy. Fact is safety became a big issue to manufacturers and shoppers a long time ago. Yes, its true that Volvo has WHIPS and some other things exclusive to them, but does that make up for 4-star frontal crash rating? I won't say yes or no because I'm sure volvo could come up with a crash test where they do better than the Accord. Just like Honda could probably come up with a test where a Volvo comes out like a piece of scrap metal. But the truth remains that you can't blindly say a Volvo is better than a Honda when it comes to crash safety.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • tornado25tornado25 Posts: 279
    You said: "But the truth remains that you can't blindly say a Volvo is better than a Honda when it comes to crash safety."

    Nor can one say that because Honda has 5 stars in the frontal tests, it is better than the Volvo (or any other 4 star car, for that matter).

    For me, my car is 99.9% 1 person (me). I don't care about front passenger, rear passenger, trunk passengers. I want to live. Period. That said, I ask myself: What car would I ideally like to be in that balances safety with performance/comfort demands? To be honest, if it were collision safety alone, I would drive a high-end SUV (one that still uses side airbags/crumple zones, etc but is still inherently more resistant to another SUV). But, I don't want to drive an SUV.

    The car I drive now neither is very safe against any kind of collision (I don't think) nor is it really the kind of car I want to drive. But, it's what I can afford now, so I have to live with risk. When it comes to buying a new car, I will look at everything, not just NHTSA's crash tests.

    Whew! All that said, I DO understand your point about people saying I will only buy x because of y (whether that's "I buy a Volvo because they're safest"--not necessarily true, or "I buy Honda because they're most reliable"--also not necessarily true).

    The problem is, using the example is when I think of Honda, I think BORRRING, not safe, not even fun, my first thought isn't even "reliable"--it's BORRRING. And I believe driving and owning a car is LOT more than simply driving from A to B as safely, economically, and reliably as possible. Hondas or another car may fit that bill, but I would sooner walk out of sheer boredom.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    Its the little things that Volvo has that Honda lacks.
    Yes you can look at the tests, but they aen't the real world. We see the real world every day and its not as pretty as it is in the labs.
    Like I said its the little things with the Volvo, like the head restraints(they're the only ones to get a good rating from anybody) The WHIPS system.
    The SIPS system, including the built up side rails and the fact that the seats will move as a single unit away from impact.
    The way the front frame rails curve inward to protect your legs and feet. Something you still don't see from alot of FWD manufacturers.
    The RSC system on the XC90, something the Pilot and MDX lack.
    How many Hondas can withstand 30,000 lbs of force to their roofs? How many pilots can take 78000 lbs on their roofs?
    Volvo is constantly innovating for safety, not to pass some stupid test but because of their core belief. Only 2 motor companies run their own accident investigation teams in their home countries, Volvo and Mercedes. Between these 2 they hold 99% of the patents for safety on every car in the world. Today Volvo(and N-B) are working on the next level of safety sytems, thing we are only hearing rumors about. A decade after they come out maybe Honda will copy some of them(
    the Accord LX doesn't even offer side air curtains, guess your only safe if you opt for the EX V6 model)Same with the MDX, you only get a curtain if you get an 04 model.
    That to me is the difference between Volvo and Honda, Volvo builds the safest car it can, for everyone in every model. Period. Honda will do it if its cost effective, or can charge extra for it.
  • avolvofanavolvofan Posts: 358
    You forgot about boron steel in at a minimum, the S60. I got a parking lot nick recently and the body shop that painted the car repairs a lot of Volvos - the manager was marveling at how tough the boron steel is in the S60. They had to buy a special dent pulling kit for the boron steel. Just one more example of Volvo sweating the details.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,438
    Nor can one say that because Honda has 5 stars in the frontal tests, it is better than the Volvo (or any other 4 star car, for that matter).

    right. that was my point.

    I also think Honda is boring. That's why I picked them as the example. Volvomax was talking about how we should purchase a car based on resale value and customer base. If we follow that rule, then we must pick Honda over Volvo because Honda is a far more popular car, regardless of how boring it is. Its the same reasoning that drove volvomax to say that an automatic 2.5T is a better purchase than a manual T5. To him, does it matter that the T5 in sport guise outperforms and "outfuns" the other car? Nope. It will resell for less (percentage-wise) and appeal to a smaller crowd due to the stick, so its a bad pick in his eyes.

    And that's where this talk of safety came in. But, volvomax, why should safety even matter? Again, the Honda has better resale and appeals to more shoppers. That's all that matters, right?

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • tornado25tornado25 Posts: 279
    I have no comment on the resale/popularity/which model issue. I simply buy the car or truck I want that carries the features I want and properly balances that with safety. I couldn't care less if the resale value is 20% in 3 years. cars are not an investment in any way, shape, or form.

    Re: the issue of resale itself, I cannot understand why resale value is such a huge issue to begin with. People making all sorts of decisions on one issue like Chevy advertising it has the highest resale value of any truck, blah, blah. People will buy based on that and be driving a truck they can't stand. Good decision! My point is: If you can't live with the fact that they item you're buying maybe worth little or nothing in a few years, then you shouldn't buy it. I buy a car with the assumption it will be worth $500 in 6 or 7 years. If it's more, great! Besides, resale on higher end cars is not that great of a difference between makes, IMO.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,438
    except I don't keep my cars long. but that's my problem. ;)

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    The original question was which has better resale, a T5 or a 2.5T. The answer is a 2.5T.
    Yes the T5 is a better performing car, but only marginally so. The R is a MUCH better performer, hence the death of the T5. The average Volvo consumer has little interest in high performance. Remember, the AVERAGE Volvo consumer. Not the sports car freaks that sometimes inhabit this forum, myself included. I personally would go for the R over any other S60.

    The whole resale question then came up and if you buy a car based on resale alone than a Honda is the smart choice.
    My comment to gbrozen was that Volvo safety was superior to Hondas, at which point he took me for a mindless booster of Volvo. Which I think I clearly rebutted.
    Honda has their ethos, and they do somethings well, better than Volvo. Volvo does some things much better than Honda. What you purchase should reflect your needs and desires and pocketbook.
  • I hope that the R can hold its value more than the other S60s, much like the S4 and M3 hold theirs more than the A4 and 3-series Bimmers.

    I would be disappointed in Volvo if:

    1. They go the incentive route as they do with other models.
    2. They boost the volume too much (thus leading to incentives)
    3. The performance was over-promised by Volvo marketing. This area will be the most interesting to follow and could nullify the two items listed above -- either way. If the performance was overstated, then the damage to resale will be great, after the car reviews, dealers, and word of mouth tell about Volvo's rep as a pretender. On the other hand, if Volvo stands behind the R, upgrades it, and counters the claims of less-than-stellar performance, it can snowball in their favor.

    I have an S60R (auto) and Volvo has never been on my radar. I buy cars in the 30K - 40K range every 1.5 to 2 years. Resale always kills me (especially w/American cars), but if the S60 can hold its value like an S4 or M3, I would be happy to be a repeat buyer. If not, the extra 10K for the S4 might not look so bad.

    I love the car so far and really hope that Volvo stays committed to performance and will improve answer the performance questions posed so far.

    Safety? LOL, that's another post... ;)
  • This is the way I look at safety (and I'm not a brand-loyal guy)....

    Let's look at the new S60R's performance. For the sake of my example, let's pretend that the R has the exact same times as an M3 in 0-60 and same braking 70mph-0.

    That said, I wouldn't make the argument that the R is as good as an M3. An M3 owner will tell you that they are more 'connected' or that they will race your R on a road course any day. The M3 has been there for many years and I would assume that the M3 would have an advantage to the newcomer.

    Same thing with safety and Volvos.

    Same thing with Chrysler and minivans, for 10 years or so (now, I'm not so sure).

    Same thing with American full-size pickups (might be changing eventually with challenges from Nissan and Toyota).

    I think that Volvo does a lot of things that just aren't measured when it comes to safety, just like the M3 owners will tell you when it comes to performance.

    Not sure I stated it clearly, but I think you are downplaying Volvo's commitment to safety and placing too much emphasis on government studies.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,438
    Nobody ever asked about the resale of the T5 vs. 2.5T. You offered it up as a reason against buying a T5. I mentioned how cheap they are right now, to which you answered that it will have bad resale. You also said "Good luck at resale time, it will be a hard car to sell. Because your limiting your resale base."
    And that is where I came back with the Honda comment, meaning that if we, as buyers, only concerned ourselves with resale value and customer base, then we should all buy Hondas.

    Your other quote is "honda is a fine car until you get hit." This is still a silly statement because, according to independent crash testing, the Honda Accord does better than the S60. So you didn't rebut anything. And I'm STILL not saying the Volvo OR the Accord is safer. I'm merely presenting a fact. Yeah, whips, sips, blah. So, great, I only get 80% of the crash effectiveness of an Accord, but I won't have whiplash. That's good to know.

    We obviously have different priorities. Yours apparently goes in the order of safety, resale, performance. Mine is performance, resale, safety. I got about a million to one chance of putting that boron steel roof to use, but I will use that performance every day I drive the car. Yes, resale matters to me, but I won't drive something that is inferior just to get it.

    So you say you'd get an R? But you won't buy a manual because it kills your resale base. But the T5 auto is faster than the auto R. So are you paying that extra $7K just for AWD??

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,438
    I'm not saying Volvo safety is crap. I really do understand there is alot more to it. And to go around touting what Volvo offers is great. but it is completely ridiculous to DOWNPLAY any other manufacturer. Go over to the other boards where salesman frequent and most will tell you that a good salesman will talk up his car while NOT talking down another manufacturer. So rather than say a Honda does poorly in a crash, which is obviously not true and makes the person saying that seem uneducated in that fact, you talk about how Volvo does their own tests not even deemed necessary by the government and this is what they do.... etc. So you point out all the good things on a Volvo and not once have you tried to slam any other manufacturer.

    So there is my sales tip of the day. ;)

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • gbrozen,

    I would still buy the R-auto over the T5 and I realize that everyone has to weigh their desires/needs/benefits. To me, the R offers more than AWD. You also get the variable chassis (4C), which I think is awesome. I'm not a total car enthusiast, but I can still appreciate this feature. You also get awesome seats, special interior details, different wheels, and a slightly more aggressive look. Finally, you get some 'halo' effect, which seems to help hold values (still to be seen, but it is my guess that it will happen). As long as Volvo continues to limit production, you should be ok.

    I have the R-auto and absolutely love it. A couple of bugs need to get worked out, but nothing too significant. Very happy that I didn't go the slightly cheaper route with the T5. The enjoyment factor, the AWD, and potential resale advantage (in that order) will be the benefits that I perceive in my choice.

    Just my $0.02.
  • This may sound a bit compulsive, but I recently purchased an S60R with a manual transmission. After a few weeks, the spaceball developed the most annoying creek you can imagine coming from the leather ball every time I shifted. I got tired of drowning it out with the radio. The service department took it apart and lubricated it which got rid of the creek, but it now has a bit of play (wiggles) side to side. They said a replacement knob/stock will do the same thing as it is plastic and metal screwed together with no lubrication. Meanwhile, they admit they have not seen this problem before. I may push the issue further for a replacment shift knob or maybe just let it go. Anyone experience this? Otherwise, but for a few cosmetic annoyances upon delivery it's been a great car. I too am hunting for winter wheels/tires which the Volvo dealer told me today they were still pushing Volvo HQ for some guidance. They told me I may have to keep the original rims an swap tires.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,438
    i'm glad you are happy with your purchase. Enjoy.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • This may sound a bit compulsive, but I recently purchased an S60R with a manual transmission. After a few weeks, the spaceball developed the most annoying creek you can imagine coming from the leather ball every time I shifted. I got tired of drowning it out with the radio. The service department took it apart and lubricated it which got rid of the creek, but it now has a bit of play (wiggles) side to side. They said a replacement knob/stock will do the same thing as it is plastic and metal screwed together with no lubrication. Meanwhile, they admit they have not seen this problem before. I may push the issue further for a replacment shift knob or maybe just let it go. Anyone experience this? Otherwise, but for a few cosmetic annoyances upon delivery it's been a great car. I too am hunting for winter wheels/tires which the Volvo dealer told me today they were still pushing Volvo HQ for some guidance. They told me I may have to keep the original rims an swap tires.
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,859
    I just got the most recent Car and Driver and Tirerack's ad had a listing for the V70R but no S60R. Have you spoken with them directly?
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    Actually I would only get the manual R.
    The auto version is too slow to suit me.

    Performance is my big thing, resale doesn't matter to me because I generally lease my cars.

    When you talk about safety you talk of 1 government test,that even Kia and Hyundai can get good marks in. I talk about all the little under the skin differences that give Volvos a real world advantage over other cars, esp the japanese cars.

    I have tried to share why the T5 doesn't do well, in short because the 2.5T gives you 98% the performance and features for less money, and because the average used Volvo buyer is concerned with safety and value first and doesn't see spending extra money for a marginally faster used car. Hence the difference in resale value. The 2.5T should do very well at resale tme because of its better value(more features, performance etc)

    As for safety, your right its a million to one shot that you'll be involved in a serious life threatening accident, but even if you get rear ended at less than life threatening speed I'd still rather be in the Volvo with its superior seats and WHIPS system. How does Honda stack up in that test?(Trick question no one tests for rear end collisions, except the motor companies)
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,438
    and since it hasn't been tested on the Honda, you can't say it would do poorly or even worse than the Volvo.

    its more than 1 test. Its right-front, left-front, front-side, and rear-side.

    Given the 2.5T only comes in auto form, it doesn't even come close to a manual T5 with sport suspension in terms of performance. The performance difference between these 2 is pretty similar to the performance difference between the T5 and R. And that is no cut on the R, believe me, but it just means that, excluding the T5, there is a HUGE gap in the lineup between the 2.5 and the R.

    So when talking about the T5 your take is "resale is affected and the auto 2.5T performs good enough", but when talking about the R you say "I don't care about resale and the auto is too slow." OK, that's fine, as long as we're clear.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • My original post got deleted...I referenced another forum, which I now know is a no-no...

    Can't help you on the shifter issue, ....

    As to winter wheels/tires, so far I haven't found a wheel that will fit
    the R, other than the stock Pegasus rim. TireRack still hasn't approved
    any rims, so if you buy any from them, it's at your own risk as you
    can't return them.

    Depending on your winter tire need (ice, snow, temps, etc) will
    determine the best tire for you. I went with Vredesteins and look forward to
    working them out in a couple months. As to the wheels, I have some
    Pegasus rims on reserve, but I'm going to wait a week or so, when TireRack
    will have their results for the R.

    (Hopefully I cleaned up the post enough!) Sorry, board monitors!
  • robr,

    Yes, I did talk to TireRack directly. I'm having a hard time getting them to tell me for sure that they will have answers next week on suitable rims for the R.

    Maybe you want to give them a call, too. They have dragged their feet on this and hopefully they will have answers soon.

    The more calls they get, the sooner we will have add'l options. I will definitely post as soon as I find out anything new from TR.
  • phils60phils60 Posts: 21
    I had to chuckle a bit when I read that people driving an R with 300hp were concerned with safety... If you're that concerned with safety, slow down.
Sign In or Register to comment.