Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Volvo probably won't be making any general announcement.
For 2005 the lineup is the S60 2.5T, S60 AWD, S60 T5 and S60R.
With the wonderful quality of the roads in the bay area, I have found that checking the tires and suspension will get me an extra 5,000 miles in wear before the tires need to be replaced. Fortunately, I have a service department that doesn't charge me for checking, only for adjustments that are done.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
Back in 2002, I was in the same predicament. I debated between a 330i and a S60 T5. I am happy with my decision. I really enjoy my car and while it may be 95% the car that the BMW is...I don't autocross and I don't drive like an [non-permissible content removed] at 10/10ths, so I would never really get what Car&Driver et al rave about...
Tell you what, my black T5 with a light tint and more aggressive tires on my Thor wheels gets stares (of course the car is kept in museum-like condition!) and honestly, I think it is easily the most attractive entry level sedan.
Just yesterday i went to test drive an MDX for my wife and the salesman was gag over my car! I think tha the S60 with the 17" tires is an aggressive looking car and the soccer mom thingy is for the wagon.
Don't be shy to talk about image. people say it is shallow or whatever. I say that a car projects what you want people to see in you. I firmly beleive that.
By the way, back to back the MDX is 10K cheaper in Canada and comes with Nav, reversing camera and Bose system. But I was less than impressed with the vehicle. The transmission was all over the place, indecisive, and the steering was dead, too much play and more dead. I don't think I could drive that car...maybe the wife can.
The XC90 was more surefooted and just felt...solid. The doors on the MDX when slammed sounded like a tin can and the leather and fake wood actually both looked and felt fake.
I think Volvos have gone from soccer mom to being a real alternative to the Germans.
BMW is the obvious answer to a sporty sedan, but the Volvo is great too. It stands a bit apart while still flying under the radar. BMW is the obvious choice, whereas Volvo is the informed choice. It's great looking, performs great (not as good as a BMW perhaps, but as stated above who really drives like that?), is renowned for safety and has great features and looks. I don't think it is a yuppie choice like BMW. In my mind, it has an image somehwat like Subaru (different, unique, smart choice, competent), but is more luxurious and refined.
I was looking at the Acura TL. Sure nice car, but man it just seemed so vanilla. Also, there are really no options on that car, so everyone is teh same. I definitely didn't like the image of myself in that car. The Volvo looks so much better and I love the seats. Plus, it's cheaper with rebates. :-) I looked at BMW's for maybe 5 minutes, and just couldn't see myself in one. It just seemed too obvious and hyped. I love my Volvo!
That was cool of the dealership. Was your dealership Sesi? It does seem a bit hard to wrap my mind around waiting 7500 miles. I was dealing with Sesi, and was planning on buying from them. However, a series of unfortunate family events (nothing related to my experience with Sesi) have caused me to be out of town quite a bit, and I ended up buying from a dealership in Traverse City. They had what I wanted (well, I really wanted the S60R, but...) on the lot, and it made sense to just get it done. I feel somewhat bad because I was working with a good guy at my local dealership, but it just worked out another way, not really what I intended. Since I'll be getting my service there, I'll probably do something for my salesman like give him a gift certificate or something to make sure we still have a good relationship.
Funny thing was it started better, but performance was noticeably down. Oh sure, if you never drove the car before, you wouldn't notice, but driving it everyday you notice easily that the car doesn't have the same oomph.
Fill up again with the 91, and it felt like someone put in 104 octane!
By the way, I love the new 5 series. that will probably be my next car after my T5 runs throuh its lease.
I wouldn't mind an S60R...the problem is I don't think I can drive the same car for 7 years. I like new things and new experiences.
Turbo models only
Volvo does recommend 91 octane gasoline. Lesser octane will work, you will see a reduction in performance/economy.
I'm considering getting a 2001 Volvo S60 with 60+K miles and price tag of $13K. I've always liked Volvos for a number of reasons (space, safety, reputation, mechanics) but I am not too educated on how high the mileage on these vehicles can go. I'm also a husky 6'3 with three little ones so interior room is an issue for me. I think that this is a solid option for me but would be very interested in hearing the opinions of others.
Thanks much in advance
Thanks,
Steve
btw the ad was $308 for 48mo, 2K down plus t&l 350 deposit, 40 k miles. vehicles with 33K MSRP
Think of it as a Prem Pkg +.
Car will come w/ 17" wheels.
All other Volvo's are 50 state cars. The other Volvo engines are ULEV or LEV depending on the engine.
Thank you!!!
However, the Pirelli's are Summer tires. They do ok for light snow/rain but for the heavy stuff get snow tires.
There are several brands that work well.
i like options, but it gets too pricey, is it worth getting the base model of either of these cars , or should i shop elsewhere ?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
Thanks.
First of all, there is a distinct difference between AWD and 4x4. The 4x4 means you have constant power to all four wheels. This will enable you to brake later when attacking a corner, and step on the gas a little bit earlier when exiting. However, once you're in the corner 4x4 or FWD doesn't matter - it's all about G forces and tire grip.
AWD (when we're talking about Volvo) is normally FWD and only disperses power to all four wheels when needed, i.e. when traction is a problem. This is done by electronic sensors and micro chips and usually involves cutting power to the engine as well.
BBC's Top Gear once compared a RWD, FWD and AWD vehicle driving through corners. The results were that the RWD went through them faster since when you step on the gas, the rear of the car will push it through the corner and "help" you line it up straight faster, thus giving you a quicker exit time. Of course, the problem with RWD cars are that if you put too much power down they'll spin out and you'll hit whatever obstacle that's out there either sideways or rear first - both of which from a safety standpoint are bad.
The AWD and FWD vehicles (both Audi A4s) behaved exactly the same. They were both "chugging" over the front tires, starting to go off the track. As they were saying, for racing purposes this is not what you want, but from a safety standpoint you'll be hitting something head on, giving you a large deformation zone and an engine to shield you from the impact.
The reason they stated the FWD and AWD cars behaved so similar, was that the AWD is heavier (so it's cornering time was actually slightly slower than the FWD car) and once you're in the corner there's only so much you can do.
Here's my reason for thinking AWD is overrated. It adds weight to your car, hence gas milage is lowered. There's more electronics and sensors and mechanical stuff involved, all of which could add expense if you need to repair it. And AWD is only there when you loose traction, and if you're doing 60MPH at that time it's not about AWD or not if you'll manage to keep control over your vehicle - it's about stabilization systems and your own capabilities as a driver (plus a whole lot of luck!).
Unless you live where it snows a lot and/or you have a lot of ice on the roads, so that you could use the added traction of AWD for getting up steep hills or the likes, then what's the point?
I live in SoCal where the sun shines 340 days a year. When it rains it can get pretty horrid, but there's still no need for four wheel traction. I have a lot of friends who keep talking about AWD this, AWD that, and they are convinced an AWD vehicle is more stable than anything else. That is absolutely not true, and it's my opinion that this type of thinking will create a false sense of security with the driver. (Last time we had heavy rain and I happened to be on the freeway, I can't tell you how many cars with really wide high performance tires I saw passing me at speeds that even I in my "normal" car couldn't do. I passed two of these cars about ten minutes later as they had spun off the road...)
Growing up I watched a lot of British touring car racing. This is what I learned from watching Audi do battle with BMW and Volvo (yes, Volvo were in it and quite successful at that). The Audis could brake later before a corner, and thus gain the advantage. Going through the corner they were going at the same speed as the others. Exiting they could step on the power a little bit earlier, and again gain an advantage. But, with their added weight from the AWD system, the others caught up during acceleration. And these cars were racing cars, tuned every way imagineable, and yet they still performed very similar to the other cars on the grid. The consumer versions, even the high end ones, are not tuned this way.
I don't know if I made a point here or not, but if you read all of this, you are a very patient person.
Here is a dissenting opinion. Your discussion of 4x4 is a bit off. There are different types of 4x4 systems. One type (e.g. non-permanent) requires an engagement of the 4x4 drive (either electronically or by the operator manually engaging 4x4); this is what you will find on the Ford Expedition. The other general type of 4x4 is known as permanent 4x4, where the vehicle is always in 4x4 mode; permanent 4x4 is what the Hummer H1 is equipped with. With the non-permanent 4x4, all axles are locked when 4x4 is engaged. When you attempt to turn the vehicle (either right or left), drivetrain binding is experienced due to the wheels on the outside of the turn having to cover more distance than the wheels on the inside of the turn. For this reason (binding), non-permanent 4x4 is a low-speed off-road traction assist and has no bearing on high speed on-road traction/driveability. Permanent 4x4, by its internal design and mechanical components, does not suffer from the binding that occurs when the vehicle is turned right or left. In really bad traction conditions, permanent 4x4 can also have the front and rear axles locked to provide further low speed traction; however, the problems with binding of the driveline are present when the axles are locked. 4x4 systems have both a high and low gear range, where the high gear range is used for normal driving and the low range is used for low speed, low traction driving where engine torque is used to get the vehicle out of traction-challeged situations. To net out the above discussion, 4x4 systems are chiefly designed for low speed off-road low traction conditions.
AWD systems are designed to provide traction to all wheels all the time, and are meant as a traction assist to on-road driving where traction needs are typically present at higher vehicle speeds. The example you gave of Audis is relevent. And, yes AWD systems really do provide traction to all of the wheels all of the time. The Volvo Haldex system provides 5% traction to the rear wheels at all times; when there is slippage (if memory serves, 1/7th of a wheel revolution is the metric) between the front and rear wheels, traction is increased to the rear wheels until the slippage is eliminated. The advantages of AWD are that you get a faster launch and turns can be negotiated faster and there is no drivetrain binding. Weight penalty of the Haldex AWD system is on the order of about 180 lbs. I have noticed about a 1 mpg penalty with my S60AWD.
If you frequently have slippery road traction conditions, AWD is a definite advantage. I live in an area where summer evenings are foggy and mist mixes with road oil for a very slippery driving surface. I can't count the number of times where non-AWD cars have been stopped at a traffic light with me. The light changes to green, the non-AWD car's driver presses the accelerator and the tires (front or back) spin on the slippery road surface. My S60AWD just moves forward with no fuss and the other car is in my rear view mirror. A further advantage of AWD on Volvos is that the AWD system cancels out the effects of torque steer on hard acceleration. Personally, the additional 180 lbs. and 1 mpg penalty is a small price to pay for the additional traction (and safety) advantages of the AWD option.
A further safety system that works on high-speed rain-slicked roads is DSTC (Dynamic Stability Traction Control). (DSTC also works on ice conditions.) The cars you describe that had spun while driving on rain-slicked roads may not have spun had they been equipped with DSTC. However, no safety system can re-write the laws of physics; operator stupidity can still result in a spin.
Hope this response did not bore you.
The HU803 is the Dolby upgrade for the S60.
Its rather costly to do it after the fact. You have to replace all the speakers, add the 2 center speakers, add an amp and replace tthe head unit. Plus download a bunch of software from Volvo. If memory serves, it's about twice as expensive as getting it from the factory.
To me, DSTC should be standard on Volvos (and the equivalent systems should be standard on every other car sold in this county.) Just like ABS and airbags should be standard on EVERY car built today. I can't believe there are still cars sold where ABS is optional! Or that you have to pay extra for airbags!
I guess AWD isn't a bad thing. Not on Volvos anyway. Audi however...
The DSTC, in turn, is superior to most of the systems from other brands.
And DSTC is standard on all Volvo SUV's - XC90.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
Anyone have a recommendation for new tires - tires that will work well in summer and also in the snowy winters where I live in the North East? I dont want to hasstle with changing to snow tires in winter - I went through that with my Volvl 760 and it wasnt worthit - with that car I ended up with Gislaveds on it.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
but i just mentioned 4x4, obviously, because the previous poster felt it allowed you to brake further into a corner than the other 2 options.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
1. Michelin Hydroedge - 60K mile wear - $97
2. Michelin Harmony - 55K mile wear - $92
3. Firestone Affinity LH30 - 45K mile wear - $60
Hope this helps.