Howdy, Stranger!

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





2008 Volvo XC70/V70

caliberchiccaliberchic Posts: 402
edited July 24 in Volvo
Discuss the new 2008 Volvo XC70/V70 here.
«134

Comments

  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,282
    well, i see no topic for the upcoming all-new '08 XC70/V70. Hosts?

    anyway, guess this is the only place to post this article.

    As we all already know, the R cars have been squashed. But as if that weren't bad enough, now we aren't getting the new T6 either?? ARRRGGGGG!!!! What the hell, Volvo?? Why have you foresaken us??? :(

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

  • caliberchiccaliberchic Posts: 402
    Your own topic, thanks for pointing that out. :)
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    "The chassis under both models is the same as Volvo’s new large-car platform, introduced under the revised S80 sedan for 2007, but the wagons are more than a foot shorter than their predecessors. Wheelbase increases about two inches to 110.8, and there’s more room inside. The exterior dimensions are a bit smaller than those of a BMW 5 Series wagon."

    Is it really shorter outside but roomier inside? What Can a 6-footer still sleep in the back with the rear seat cushion removed?

    I confess to being a minimalist tightwad, but this vehicle does not need more power than the 235 hp in 3.2L I6. The only thing it would reasonably need would be a variable stiffness suspension.
  • i was wondering if anyone knew where the new 08 V70 would be mfr and assembled? will it be in sweeden or in belgium or somewhere else? thanks
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Posts: 1,150
    Yes, it is shorter outside and roomier inside. Until you get to the luggage area which decreases from 37 to 33 cubic feet, just like an Avant A6, BMW530ix, etc.

    I've been critical in other posts on other boards of this new '08 wagon for being no faster, but heavier, with less luggage room and still essentially FWD. But, then again for what it is called upon to do and for the MSRP for which it does it, maybe you can't beat it. Sure, you can spec out an A6 Avant with some super nice features and wind up north of 50K. With the Bimmer ("Oh, you wanted leather? That's extra, too.") you are north of 65K. With the E Series Wagon you are in the upper 50's and look absolutely lovely in your wagon on your way up to St Pauls in northern NH to pick Junior up. But keep in mind that this is all just to putz around the Northeast in slush with various crap tossed in the back. At 40K the Volvo will do just fine.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    40k?! I knew I didn't have the money to retire when I did! We paid $27K (plus ~$2k TTL) for a base model 2004 V70 with 5spd auto and a roof rack added by the dealer. We paid $34K (plus ~$2k TTL) for a base model 2007 XC90 3.2.

    I guess Volvo decided to shift to a smaller wagon on the order of of a VW Passat wagon or a Subaru Legacy/Outback. Maybe they have it figured right. We intended to use the '04V70 as all purpose, but now for camping and travelling with 3 dogs we use the XC90 even though the XC90 is using ~35% more fuel per highway mile. If both vehicles are "clean" (i.e. no roof box, canoe, trailer, etc.) then the V70 gets over 34 mpg on the interstate at 65 mph, but I don't expect more than 24mpg (and may get only 22) with the XC90. So the XC90 will use at least 40% more fuel per mile than the V70. Maybe if I slow down to 60 mph, ugh!

    But the 08V70 will use the same 3.2L I6 as in the XC90. I wonder how much the hwy fuel use will increase. The NA 2.4L 5cyl is very fuel efficent.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    The XC90 will use at least 40% more fuel per mile than the V70, and maybe more like 60% more.

    I recently got 34.7 mpg with the normally aspirated 2.4L V70 clean and lightly loaded on over 700 miles of IH at about 65 mph. 34.7 mpg => 0.02882 gpm. If I get 22 mpg (=> 0.04545 gpm) with the XC90, this is 58% more fuel required to go the same distance.

    Of course, when we get to rough roads at our camping destination then the higher ground clearance of the XC90 is useful (and why we bought it). And it can carry more gear without a roof box, hitch box, or trailer.
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Posts: 1,150
    Jim, I confess to MIGO (my eyes glaze over) on this GPM stuff. But, please compare apples to apples. The 40K figure is for a reasonably up optioned AWD XC70. In my humble opinion it will be far more useful and with the leather far more comfortable than a stripped V70 unless you live in the rural SW where two wheel drive is OK. The XC also has great ground clearance and should be able to do all the things an XC90 can do with more ease and for far less money.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    I agree that the XC70 is a much better all-purpose vehicle than the V70. There is enough ground clearance for most rough roads, and a floor low enough for dog ingress and egress without needing a ramp or other device. Fuel consumption is lower than an XC90. The fact is that to meet our needs we decided to get an XC90 too. Combined cost of the two vehicles was $65k. Ouch!

    Base model V70s are not too common on dealers' lots in Dallas TX, and perhaps (speculation only) we got a good deal on the base 04V70 because they are not in demand here. But then why would it be on the lot? In Sept or Oct of 2003, the nearby dealer had two, both white with AT as the only option, one with graphite cloth and the other with light taupe, and neither had been test driven. My wife got the graphite so as not to show soiling by our dogs, which proved to be a good choice. Our vehicles get hard use.

    Right after Katrina, I transported an elderly relative with a broken hip (evacuated from a nursing home New Orleans) from south Louisiana to Kansas in the front passenger seat of the V70. I removed the right rear seat bottom to allow full reclining of the front passenger seat and he was acceptably comfortable, though it wasn't perfect. The leg with the broken hip was restricted a little due to interference with with the lower dash.

    He was in a diaper and I thought I had an impermeable barrier under that, but after arriving at the destination west of Topeka, I realized that the seat was soaked with urine. I slept in the V70 that night at a COE campground and had to have the windows open to reduce the smell. When I got home I cleaned the seat with upholstry cleaner and through rinsing and drying with a shop vac and fans. There was no residual smell. I'm not sure that leather would have been cleanable by me.

    I agree that the V70 base cloth seats are not as comfortable as the leather, but I think it is the underlying structure of the base seats rather than the cover. The base cloth seats in the XC90 are much more supportive than those in the V70. Of course, the seating position in the XC90 is more erect which is more comfortable for trips, but I don't think SUV/minivan erect seating would fit in the V70 or XC70.
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Posts: 1,150
    Jim, you're one of the good guys. When someone needs help, you step in.

    I am surprised though that you think that cloth seats clean up better and more easily than leather.

    I agree that upright seating is far more preferable on a weekend trip. I guess that is one more reason why I shouldn't buy a 911! I left New Brunswick in the Atlantic Maritimes very early this AM in my Cayenne. With an upright seating position and 63 year old bones, it wasn't a bad trip. I was at work by 9:00 AM. I don't think I could have done the same 7 hours in a 911 as easily. Believe it or not, I think my wife's XC70 would have been more comfortable than either Porsche.
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Posts: 3,118
    "the XC70 is a much better all-purpose vehicle than the V70."

    I'll play devil's advocate here and disagree with this statement.

    It seems to me that, for the vast majority of drivers, the added weight (400 lbs), 4 1/2" wider turning circle, lower fuel economy (4 MPG hwy), and reduced ride comfort are not worth suffering 90% of the time just so you can go a little farther off-road than the regular wagon twice a year.

    In fact, if you really must do serious off-road driving, why not take the $6,500.00 you save buying a 2.4L V70 and buy a 2001 Ford Explorer? You get a vehicle with proper off-road credentials and you spare subjecting your $37,000 luxury wagon to the brutalities of the beaten path.

    Sorry, but I think the XC70 is an unfortunately compromised touring wagon and off-road vehicle - it doesn't excel at either.
  • stmssstmss Posts: 206
    You can extend this concept to the XC90 as well. With the exception of 7 seats, the XC90 does little more than the XC70 which does little more than the V70. When I looked at the XC90 last year I found very little functional difference over my V70 - for the 95+% of the time you are driving it. I think the biggest benefit of the XC70 over the V70 is ground clearance - which makes it more useable in rural, gravel, and snow belts. I think it is all marketing and image.
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Posts: 3,118
    Yup, you're right.

    I think this whole AWD craze that is going on right now is nothing more than a fleecing of the American public to increase profits.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    The progression of V70 to XC70 to XC90 will have some people saying that each step provides a negligible change for their needs. But others may need or find useful the increased functionality.

    I put a trailer hitch on our 2004 V70, intending it to be an all purpose vehicle. For long vacation camping trips I intended to tow an aerodynamic sport trailer of 40 to 80 cu ft, but this planned for "trip of a lifetime" has yet to take place, and I have yet to buy the sport trailer. I have done some hauling of landscape and garden supplies with a utility trailer.

    For the shorter trips we have taken, an 18 cu ft Thule roof box has sufficed, and gave 28 mpg at 60 mph on backroads.
    But I recently had to turn around in the V70 on a gravel road which was scraping the bottom. I'm sure that an XC70 would have handled that road.

    Recently my wife and I took a long trip in the XC90 with our 3 dogs--mostly as house-guests of relatives and some camping. The XC90 carried a lot more gear inside than the V70 or the XC70 could have done and was a lot more comfortable on the road. Of course, the fuel consumption was about 22 mpg so fuel consumption was ~25% higher than the V70 with a roofbox.

    I like the fact that the rear side windows in the XC90 retract fully into the door. We let our two larger dogs (65-lb border collie and lanky 35- lb mutt) have heads outside the window when the road and the traffic allows it (tethered with canine auto restraints), and I don't like the fact that in the V70 they could get hit under the chin by the edge of the window if I would hit an unexpected bump.
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Posts: 1,150
    Fedlawman, nice post. Let me extend it some. Probably with a good set of winter tires like Blizzaks or better, a V70 or even a V70 T5 would be all you would need for a suburban commuter whose route was a 1/2 mile jaunt to get out of his subdivision and then onto a well plowed/sanded Interstate.

    On the other hand if you live north of the GW Washington Bridge ( all of New England, upstate NY), a XC70 is handy 4-5 months a year, especially if you live in a non-metro area. The rubber cladding may look phony but it does offer increased protection.

    Now, lets not pick on the XC70 crowd. How about the people who spend 67K for a Bimmer 5 Series AWD wagon? Thats truly nutty.

    YMMV
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Posts: 3,118
    Actually, the $95,000 Porsche Cayenne Turbo is what I was thinking... :surprise:

    Seriously though, my beef is with all of the AWD sedans and wagons being sold to customers in So Cal, AZ, NV, etc. You wouldn't believe how many Range Rovers, X5s, and Cayennes there are running around Los Angeles.

    I acknowledge that there are people who actually make use of the benefits of AWD and higher ground clearance (like the New Englanders you mention). I still contend that they are better served with a 5 year old Explorer or Cherokee than a $40,000 Volvo - I know I wouldn't want my cars subjected to road salt and other de-ice chemicals that are routinely used in those areas.
  • I know that they will use the 3.2 I6 with 232 hp and there will be a T6 AWD with a 3.0 I6 with around 280 hp. But since this is based on the S80, does anyone know if it will use the same 4.4L V8 as in the S80 and XC90?
  • stmssstmss Posts: 206
    The progression of V70 to XC70 to XC90 will have some people saying that each step provides a negligible change for their needs. But others may need or find useful the increased functionality

    I would agree with you if the increased functionality was used frequently enough. I have 3 kids and my camping includes my V70 with cargo box, 5 bikes, tent, camp chairs etc. I also live in rural western Canada and use the car for many winter excurisons skiing - just need some good snow tires. Here it can snow 6 months of the year. Only complaint is ground clearance.

    Having said all that, I will be looking at an 08XC70 next year when my Freestyle lease is up. Not to replace my V70 though. The new one is for work as I have frequent trips down some questionable roads in all sorts of conditions. Conditions that would challenge regular car clearances. I would just as soon have a regular turbo V70 with higher clearance.
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Posts: 1,150
    Just curious, I'm surprised that your only problem is clearance. I would think that on marginal rural roads you would have traction problems also that could only be met with AWD.
  • stmssstmss Posts: 206
    Not really had any problems. We have had the Volvo since 99 and are still running the same Gislaved winter tires (I will put new ones on this winter). The Pirellis P6 on it during the summer are off at the first sign of snow as they are useless. The car has 170,000 km.

    When we trek off to the mountains every winter, we will normally take the Volvo FWD with the snow tires rather than the Freestyle with AWD (it has all season tires). If the FS had snow tires then would probably use it. But we find the Volvo has far more grip with the snow tires. But the ground clearance has cost us as my wife has taken out both the bottom off the radiator and the oil pan in the last 7 years - and if we get into deep snow, the car will tend to plough it.
  • bakarbakar Posts: 4
    Can anyone help me.
    I have a weird thing going on. My Volvo XC70 seems to loose memory of seats/mirrors adjustments. Sometimes it does work perfectly and sometimes it looks like the computer looses all memory settings. I went to volvo dealer but they could not find a problem. This thing looks like is random and I cannot track any dependence either I shut down the engine or reset everything. I was wondering if anybody has the same problem. I know it does not seem to be a big deal but it's annoying that I paid for something which works occasionally.
    Many thanks for any help or suggestion.
  • No it wont get a V8 and in fact you wont see a turbo in it either. They are thinking of putting a turbo 3.0 in th 09's probably around november if they decide to do it. and the hp on the 3.2 is 235.
  • I just saw an '08 XC in the flesh at a local dealer. It wasn't compelling. Sure the interior is nicer and the powertrain better but I fear that Volvo fell into the same trap as Jaguar. They didn't change the design enough. The re-styled all alu '04 on up XJ sedan hasn't sold well despite impeccable reliability ratings because it wasn't seen as a fresh start. I don't think that the '08 Volvo XC is going to sell well against the increased competition in this market segment for the same reason. At 50 feet only a car nut could tell the difference between an old style XC and the new '08. This is not going to be a happenning event.

    My suggestion would be to pick up a new '07 at a great price and be happy you didn't get suckered into paying the introductory price for the new style XC.
  • I drove the car the other day. Dealer sure has a lot of them in stock. In any case the ride is firm but compliant. I'm still not convinced that the car is quick enough for me, though. It's lots better than that 208hp turbo slug but coming from a Saab 9-5 V6 turbo the XC70 still seems like it can't get out of it's own way.

    Also the current rendition is not available with HID headlights. Volvo tells me they'll be available on later production models.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    I suppose this is powered by the naturally aspirated 3.2L inline-6, rated at 235 hp. This ought to be plenty powerful, but you'd expect it to be fairly fuel efficient. In short--a competent, practical premium 4WD wagon.

    But the Edmunds site gives this data. This fuel use is disappointing to me. My 2004 V70 (base 168hp NA I5 5A) was rated at 22/30 mpg city/hwy. I get that and more on the highway and about that in the city.

    "Fuel Tank Capacity: 18.5 gal.
    EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
    Automatic: : 15 mpg / 22 mpg
    Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
    Automatic: 277.5 mi. / 407 mi."

    This fuel use is about what we get in my wife's 2007 XC90 3.2 2WD.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    The difference in the mpg values between my 04 V70 and the 08 XC70 is not as great as I claimed above because EPA changed the calculation procedure for the mpg figures.

    2004 FWD V70 168hp I5 5A
    New EPA MPG city/combined/hwy 19/22/28
    Old EPA MPG city/combined/hwy: 22/25/30

    The 08 XC70 uses 27% more fuel to go the same distance as the 04 V70 base model. The extra fuel goes into higher ground clearance, AWD, and an engine which is 40% more powerful and smoother running.
  • I did it yesterday - finally drove the new V70. Here are my findings:
    pros - extremely comfortable and upscale feeling (finally has a refined feel to it), looks like it was made well. The seats are amazing - better than in my 07 XC70. Standard stereo vastly improved over the HU-650.

    cons - and this is a deal breaker - the engine is NOT prowerful. In fact I had to get back in my 07 with 2.5T for comparison and the turbo deffinately has more get up and go. The 08 sounded strained when pushed hard and acted leisurely when called upon. NO thanks, Volvo made a mistake with this engine (IMO). The T6 is much needed in this vehicle.

    However when all is said and done the real issue is efficiency - the gas mileage figures seemed to have gone south on the 08's. Don't know if this is reflected by the new government reporting but the 08 V70/XC70 seem to be thirsty and that is NOT a good thing. My next car must get great mileage as we are all going to be in a hurting mess anyway when the economy tanks and fuel costs continue to surge.
    My XC70 won't be worth crap by then.

    Oh well,......
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    According to the specs the 08 V70/XC70 should not be underpowered compared to your 07 XC70 2.5T. The naturally aspirated 3.2L I6 has a higher max hp rating (235 hp vs 208 hp) and the same max torque rating (236 ft*lb at 3200 rpm vs. 236 ft*lb at 1500 rpm for the 2.5T, according to Edmunds). The fact that the 2.5T makes its torque at a much lower rpm (according to the Edmunds specs) may make the 2.5T seem more powerful.

    Of course, the 2008 XC70 is 400 lb heavier than the 2007 (4092 lb vs 3675 lb curb weights). The 08 has a slightly longer WB, but the Edmunds specs have it that the turning circle has been reduced to 37.7 ft from 43.3 ft in the 07! This is a terrific improvement.

    The engine in the 2008 V70/XC70 and XC90 is the new Volvo designed/Ford manufactured naturally aspirated 3.2L inline 6. This is the so called "short inline six" so named because it is the same overall length as the Volvo I5. In the 3.2L I6 the positions of the serpentine belt driven accessories (water pump, a/c, p/s, etc.) have been moved from the usual position on the front of the engine to the side (alternator now driven by gears rather than a belt) and back (other accessories driven by a serpentine belt). The 3.2 has a timing chain, which might last the lifetime of the engine, rather than the timing belt in the Volvo 5-cyl engines.

    My wife has an 07 XC90 3.2 2WD (curb wt 4400 lb, 400 lb more than the 08 XC70 ) and there is plenty of acceleration for her and me. I understand that eventually the I6 will be offered in one or maybe two turbocharged versions to produce about 300 hp and presumably a whiplash inducing torque curve for those who want it.

    The EPA mileage figures (new version) for the 08 XC70 are 15/22 mpg, which are not great. In the old version of the EPA mpg ratings these would probably each be about 2 to 4 mpg higher. These are not as good as the mpg values in a Subaru Outback, but that is a smaller and lighter vehicle.

    I drive a 2004 base model FWD V70 with the naturally aspirated 2.4L 5-cyl rated at 168 hp with the 5-speed auto, and this is plenty powerful enough for me. The curb wt is about 3400 lb. The 04 EPA ests for fuel economy were 22/30 mpg (old version, new version about 19/28 or so), and lightly loaded on the interstate more than once I have gotten over 34 mpg at close to 70 mpg in the summer by driving conservatively. However, the 04V70 has low ground clearance and is 2WD. A fairly heavy, AWD vehicle with over 8 inches of ground clearance is not going to get great fuel ecomomy on pavement. But my 04 V70 is not good on rough, potholed dirt and gravel roads. I have scraped the bottom more than once by try to take it on such roads.
  • stmssstmss Posts: 206
    I am looking at this car as well but have not driven yet. Won't be in the market until spring/summer or until Canadian prices come more in line with US. They are already starting the incentives on most Volvos.

    I any case, I think Volvo made a mistake in not putting a turbo in this car. Despite the specifications, the turbo engines just feel faster and more responsive during everyday driving (passing, merging etc). I have owned both V70 turbo and Saab 9.5 turbo.

    I will probably take one for a spin in the spring but may wait until 09 or buy used earlier model.
«134
This discussion has been closed.