Probably the best all around car in Volvo's inventory. Lots of power and features for a reasonable price point.
While some of the early S60's had teething issues, 99% of the cars have been very good to flawless. Keep in mind that message boards like this and others tend to bring more negative comments than positive ones. Happy people don't take the time to share their happiness, unhappy people always do.
As for packages, it depends on your region. We stock prem and sport pkg cars, or prem, sport,touring, climate and xenon cars. So we have inexpensive and loaded cars.
Deals are possible, if your willing to take a car out of dealer stock. There is an incentive, not sure if it varies by region or not.
Reliability should be very good, the 2.5l engine is just a 2.4l punched out a little. Tranny and turbo unit are unchanged.
Can anyone give me some tips on installing a cd changer (not from dealer).....based on some web surfing I did, most cd changers are not suited for Volvos...is this true...anyone out there who has installed a CD changer outside........
kinda makes me wish i was in the market for a new kinda-expensive car right now. With all this talk of incentives, I paid a visit to carsdirect and spec'd out an S60 T5 stick, premium package, sport package, climate package, navigation, and Xenons. $33,500!! That's about $6500 below sticker. Wow!! No wonder my Volvo's resale is in the crapper. LOL.
I figured an R was a no brainer, but looking at a $7K difference? I'd have to give that some SERIOUS thought.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
What do you mean? No hi-po FWD? So its going to skip from the 208hp 2.5T up to 300hp R??
Resale is an issue with recent Volvos in general. The T5s, as far as I can see, still command quite a bit more than their lesser counterparts. And I don't think just because something is gone translates into poor resale. Look at cars like the RX7, Supra, etc. They were removed from the market, but their resale remained very strong and still is up there for 10-year-old vehicles. The high-performance models always command more, so I think the same will be true with the T5s. Will it have poor resale? Yeah, but no more than the other S60s and they may even hold their value better.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Just bought my new R on Monday (manual, of course), and it's by far the best car I've ever driven. Elegant, comfortable, safe, and of course, FAST (-: Paid MSRP. Can anyone estimate as how the resale value is going to look like 4-5 years from now? My guess is that's due to demand and supply, it will hold a strong resale.
IF volvo continues to produce them in limited numbers over those 4-5 years, and IF they continue to sell for MSRP over those 4-5 years, and IF they don't drop the prices of them over those 4-5 years, and IF we don't fall into a depression over those 4-5 years, and IF gas-driven cars are still popular, and IF Jupiter's moons all stay in their proper orbit over those 4-5 years, then I'd take a guess as to 35.9834%. How's that sound?
sorry, had a LONG day!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The R plays to a limited audience. Production will likely continue to be limited as well. I would be surprised to see any significant price incentives on the R. As long as there's no reliability issues with the 300hp aluminum beast, I would expect 36-48mo resale value to be on par or slightly higher among the 60 series. That being said, it's unlikely that the R or any of the 60 series is destined to be in the same league as the RX7 or Supra... 10 years from now?
Actually the T5's don't command any more than the 2.4Ts do.At most $1000 more on the lot if that.
Salespeople push what sells, because we want to get paid now. Manuals don't sell in anything approaching numbers. So if a sale is to take place you have to order the car. Not possible with all manufacturers. I just ordered the first V70 T5 manual wagon in 6 yrs for a customer at my store. Good luck at resale time, it will be a hard car to sell. Because your limiting your resale base.
As for resale, Volvo is trying to improve that accross their range. Partly by offering more and better products that are more appealing, and partly by resisting the urge for incentives and rebates that the public loves so much. The first question that gets asked is " Do you have any incentives??" This always has a downward effect on resale. If you got $3,4,5 or $6000 off sticker on your Volvo please don't [non-permissible content removed] when it trades for $3000 below wholesale book. Now in the case of the XC90 and the R, where people are paying sticker, shame on Volvo if we can't support those cars and keep the reasale strong.
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
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.
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.
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?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
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.
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.
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??
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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!
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.
I couldn't disagree with you more, phil. It's precisely the high-performance cars that should be MOST concerned about safety. My golf cart doesn't have a lot of safety features.
I'm not a Nascar guy, but I'll bet those guys are pretty concerned about safety, too.
And horsepower doesn't always correlate to top speed. I've gone faster in 200 and 220 hp cars, than I've gone in my 300 hp R. (at least, so far) It's just getting to that speed quicker that I enjoy, even if it's just 50 mph.
right there. Some rear impact testing has been done by IIHS and Volvo's WHIPs system (developed with Autoliv) owns the benchmark for minimizing neck and spine damage from rear-impact accidents. This testing was done in late '98 or early '99 as I recall. I think the next best car was the Saab 9-5's active head restraint but there was a significant gap between first and second in impact loads on the dummies.
First, a new question relating to Volvo's, as for awhile I thought I was on a Honda board.
'04 S-60 2.5T's now have a $4K incentive according to NW FL dealers. Just before Oct, there were no incentives and it I could get $2-2.5K off of MSRP, maybe a scosh more, not a great feat, but better than nothing. Seems logical that now I would be able to get one for at least $6K under sticker as the two discounts aren't related, your thoughts?
Comments on cars other than Volvo's are best served in other posts but since we're not doing that, here's my spare change. Honda-shmonda; I owned one and felt thrifty in a dependable cookie cutter, not extra-safe or sporty. I was comfy that some year I wouldn't lose my a** at trade-in but didn't do that much better. New cars are not for investing no matter what you choose, so personal preference is just that. A company as smart as big H may have spent years figuring out how to get five stars on particular test(s). I'm not saying they cheated but may have optimized a product for a rating. Volvo has optimized a product for life, i. e.-safe versatility. Although echoing others, government & IIHS tests are only part of the story, don't rely on them for more than snapshot, and they'll never do a rear end collision test as Volvo might become number one, I pity most other manufacturers if they start doing them, LOL. Boron isn't Kryptonite, sound design outweighs use of one material. There are no gimmicky copied designs in a Volvo, if it makes it safer, better, more functional, they used it, if Gunter & Sven proved it was hype, they left it out. The difference IMHO is that most other manufacturers ask if it would sell first, then if it matters second. Safety for them is but a check-mark on a list. That my friends, is exactly why I'm buying a Volvo. Volvo is committed to maintaining their safe, fun to drive, semi-luxury reputation with profit as a the result.
I urge you not to take my opinion, form your own, but first, do this. Ask lots of body shops, insurance adjusters, physical therapists, and surviving owners, neighbors, etc. who has the most crashworthy product. Volvo will get the nod every time, promise. You'll have a blast not crashing it too.
If you aren't concerned with safety AND performance, I ask you to think hard when you click that fob as next time you could win the accident lottery. I hope you live to post again.
"If you aren't concerned with safety AND performance, I ask you to think hard when you click that fob as next time you could win the accident lottery. I hope you live to post again. "
I'm all for safety, and it's a significant reason I bought my Volvo, but that line had me laughing my a.. off! If you don't work in marketing, I think you missed your call.
I'm thinking of some slo-mo scene as a car owner clicks his fob walking toward his car, then has a flashback....looks at the 'H' on the deck lid of his Honda, then walks away.... lmao.
Great line! Overkill, for sure, but a great line. Next time I put on my Asics running shoes, I'll think that if I put on my heavier Nikes, today could be the day I win the armed theft lottery and I want to be able to out run my assailant.
if you go back a few posts, you'll see where this all started and notice my comment at how cheap you can buy an S60 right now. So, to answer your question, YES, you can get significant discount. Roughly invoice minus the rebate and maybe add a back a few hundred for dealer profit. Check carsdirect.com for an idea of what you should be paying.
As far as the safey thing, I think everyone needs to drop it. Nobody said Hondas were safer than Volvos or vice versa. A comment was made that Hondas were UNSAFE and that's where all this came from.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Actually you implied that Hondas are safer than Volvos and I said that they were LESS safe, not unsafe. The Federal Gov't has determined that Hondas are quite safe to operate on this countries roads. But I prefer to spend my time in a car who's engineers have a more zealous approach to my well being.
I never once said such a thing. I gave you government ratings. That's it. And since that time, I've said repeatedly that I refuse to take a side as to which is safer in "my opinion" because it means absolutely nothing.
And, based on this comment from you "honda is a fine car until you get hit", you were not even comparing to Volvo. You only said you wouldn't want to get hit while driving a Honda. That, to me, reads that you are saying its unsafe. If you said "I'd rather be in a Volvo than a Honda if I get hit", then that would be different.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
In a post sometime in September, you said dealer incentives on the S60 were $3,000. A day or two ago, someone (davant, I think) said he had been told by No. Fla. dealers that the incentives have gone up to $4,000. Is it true that they have gone up and, if so, does that increase apply to the AWD model as well as the other S60 models?
You sound like a bad commercial for Volvo...got any in depth research or empirical data to back up your claims? And what survivers are we to talk to? There are survivers of crashes of virtually every make and model running around. I'm not saying Volvos aren't safe but your kind of smug post doesn't do them any favors. "Honda schmonda?" LOL.
I'm glad some saw the, "man overboard" humor in my post. They're all relatively safe, but they do differ in design theories, that was my point even though I was intentionally ridiculous proving it.
Does anyone know what incentives did apply in early September? Seems the two grand we could have saved then with supposedly no incentive, plus the $3K factory incentive now, doesn't equal $5K, more like 4, strange math but that's partly due to them having to get the car elsewhere, sound fair?
I've done some marketing work for one of the biggest companies on the planet, you see them on the news daily...
Comments
Lots of power and features for a reasonable price point.
While some of the early S60's had teething issues, 99% of the cars have been very good to flawless.
Keep in mind that message boards like this and others tend to bring more negative comments than positive ones. Happy people don't take the time to share their happiness, unhappy people always do.
As for packages, it depends on your region.
We stock prem and sport pkg cars, or prem, sport,touring, climate and xenon cars.
So we have inexpensive and loaded cars.
Deals are possible, if your willing to take a car out of dealer stock. There is an incentive, not sure if it varies by region or not.
Reliability should be very good, the 2.5l engine is just a 2.4l punched out a little.
Tranny and turbo unit are unchanged.
I figured an R was a no brainer, but looking at a $7K difference? I'd have to give that some SERIOUS thought.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The T5 is going to be phased out, so resale will be an issue down the road.
Resale is an issue with recent Volvos in general. The T5s, as far as I can see, still command quite a bit more than their lesser counterparts. And I don't think just because something is gone translates into poor resale. Look at cars like the RX7, Supra, etc. They were removed from the market, but their resale remained very strong and still is up there for 10-year-old vehicles. The high-performance models always command more, so I think the same will be true with the T5s. Will it have poor resale? Yeah, but no more than the other S60s and they may even hold their value better.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Why should someone buy a car they dislike and usually pay extra so that they can resell the car for $500 more 3 years later?
No salesperson can answer that simple question.
sorry, had a LONG day!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Salespeople push what sells, because we want to get paid now. Manuals don't sell in anything approaching numbers. So if a sale is to take place you have to order the car. Not possible with all manufacturers. I just ordered the first V70 T5 manual wagon in 6 yrs for a customer at my store. Good luck at resale time, it will be a hard car to sell. Because your limiting your resale base.
As for resale, Volvo is trying to improve that accross their range. Partly by offering more and better products that are more appealing, and partly by resisting the urge for incentives and rebates that the public loves so much.
The first question that gets asked is " Do you have any incentives??"
This always has a downward effect on resale.
If you got $3,4,5 or $6000 off sticker on your Volvo please don't [non-permissible content removed] when it trades for $3000 below wholesale book.
Now in the case of the XC90 and the R, where people are paying sticker, shame on Volvo if we can't support those cars and keep the reasale strong.
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Difference new $4875, difference used $1000 maybe more.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
While Volvo does have a strong history of safety, it's the present that matters.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
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.
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?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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 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...
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.
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??
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
So there is my sales tip of the day.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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)
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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!
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.
I'm not a Nascar guy, but I'll bet those guys are pretty concerned about safety, too.
And horsepower doesn't always correlate to top speed. I've gone faster in 200 and 220 hp cars, than I've gone in my 300 hp R. (at least, so far)
Thanks.
-rollie
rdollie@att.net
'04 S-60 2.5T's now have a $4K incentive according to NW FL dealers. Just before Oct, there were no incentives and it I could get $2-2.5K off of MSRP, maybe a scosh more, not a great feat, but better than nothing. Seems logical that now I would be able to get one for at least $6K under sticker as the two discounts aren't related, your thoughts?
Comments on cars other than Volvo's are best served in other posts but since we're not doing that, here's my spare change. Honda-shmonda; I owned one and felt thrifty in a dependable cookie cutter, not extra-safe or sporty. I was comfy that some year I wouldn't lose my a** at trade-in but didn't do that much better. New cars are not for investing no matter what you choose, so personal preference is just that. A company as smart as big H may have spent years figuring out how to get five stars on particular test(s). I'm not saying they cheated but may have optimized a product for a rating. Volvo has optimized a product for life, i. e.-safe versatility. Although echoing others, government & IIHS tests are only part of the story, don't rely on them for more than snapshot, and they'll never do a rear end collision test as Volvo might become number one, I pity most other manufacturers if they start doing them, LOL. Boron isn't Kryptonite, sound design outweighs use of one material. There are no gimmicky copied designs in a Volvo, if it makes it safer, better, more functional, they used it, if Gunter & Sven proved it was hype, they left it out. The difference IMHO is that most other manufacturers ask if it would sell first, then if it matters second. Safety for them is but a check-mark on a list. That my friends, is exactly why I'm buying a Volvo. Volvo is committed to maintaining their safe, fun to drive, semi-luxury reputation with profit as a the result.
I urge you not to take my opinion, form your own, but first, do this. Ask lots of body shops, insurance adjusters, physical therapists, and surviving owners, neighbors, etc. who has the most crashworthy product. Volvo will get the nod every time, promise. You'll have a blast not crashing it too.
If you aren't concerned with safety AND performance, I ask you to think hard when you click that fob as next time you could win the accident lottery. I hope you live to post again.
I'm all for safety, and it's a significant reason I bought my Volvo, but that line had me laughing my a.. off! If you don't work in marketing, I think you missed your call.
I'm thinking of some slo-mo scene as a car owner clicks his fob walking toward his car, then has a flashback....looks at the 'H' on the deck lid of his Honda, then walks away.... lmao.
Great line! Overkill, for sure, but a great line. Next time I put on my Asics running shoes, I'll think that if I put on my heavier Nikes, today could be the day I win the armed theft lottery and I want to be able to out run my assailant.
As far as the safey thing, I think everyone needs to drop it. Nobody said Hondas were safer than Volvos or vice versa. A comment was made that Hondas were UNSAFE and that's where all this came from.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The Federal Gov't has determined that Hondas are quite safe to operate on this countries roads.
But I prefer to spend my time in a car who's engineers have a more zealous approach to my well being.
And, based on this comment from you "honda is a fine car until you get hit", you were not even comparing to Volvo. You only said you wouldn't want to get hit while driving a Honda. That, to me, reads that you are saying its unsafe. If you said "I'd rather be in a Volvo than a Honda if I get hit", then that would be different.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Does anyone know what incentives did apply in early September? Seems the two grand we could have saved then with supposedly no incentive, plus the $3K factory incentive now, doesn't equal $5K, more like 4, strange math but that's partly due to them having to get the car elsewhere, sound fair?
I've done some marketing work for one of the biggest companies on the planet, you see them on the news daily...
Thanks for the advice, need more input.