Howdy, Stranger!

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

Volvo S60



  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    Hard car to find.
    There are some out there thta are just base manuals, but I doubt that you will find a leather equipped manual .
    If anything you'd have to take the full prem pkg.
    Its very late in the year to try and find one though
  • dbd1146dbd1146 Posts: 1
    I'm about to lease a 2003 S60 AWD with most of the options (but not the high-end navigation or 6-CD package). Does $491 for 48 mths with $1,000 down sound decent?

    BTW, I've got an 2000 S40 (about to be turned in) and a 2001 V70. How will the S60 AWD compare? We live near snow and are looking forward to skiing without chains.

    Any other helpful hints would be appreciated...
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 22,091
    So, what are we talking about here? A sticker of about $36K-$37K? Invoice down around $34,5K or so. And, with Volvo's current $4500 dealer cash, that brings it right down near $30grand even.

    $24,500 in lease payments on a $30K car seems pretty steep to me. I'm really not a leasing guru or anything, so I don't know. I'm just going by these numbers. I guess as long as the buyout in the end is like $10K, then its ok. But that is if you want to buy it out. If you want to just turn it over at the end of the lease, I would think you'd want a better deal than that.

    Shop it around. Email some other dealers with the car that you want and the options and ask them what their best lease rate is.

    '17 F150 Crew 2.7; '67 Coronet R/T; '14 Town&Country Limited; '09 LR2 HSE. 44-car history and counting!

  • You mentioned Volvo's current $4500 dealer cash -what does this mean for me if I am planning to buy? As I see it, this amount should be knocked off the sticker, then there should be room for further negotiating. Any thoughts?
  • dmarcus48dmarcus48 Posts: 139
    Actually it should be knocked off of INVOICE, not sticker.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 22,091
    You should be getting a Volvo close to invoice, THEN getting them to knock off the dealer cash. Just so you know, dealer cash is cash for the dealer, not you. So they are under NO obligation to tell you about it. You have to let them know that you know about it and would like to take it into consideration. If this dealer isn't willing to deal like that, then move on. I suggest looking at Get the pricing from there and bring that with you as ammo. If they can't at least match it, then go to the next guy.

    '17 F150 Crew 2.7; '67 Coronet R/T; '14 Town&Country Limited; '09 LR2 HSE. 44-car history and counting!

  • faaifaai Posts: 2
    Are there any significant differences between the 2003 and 2004?
    Is the 2004 4-C (DSTC) the same as the one available in the 2003 model?
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    The only change to the 04 is that the S60 2.4T becomes a 2.5T.
    Goes from 197hp to 208 hp, with a boost in torque as well.
    DSTC and the 4C chassis concept are NOT the same thing.
    4C only available on the R in the S60 lineup for 04.
  • hclllhclll Posts: 35
    Please let us know about your new purchase price.

  • Anyone know anything about this or have this feature - is it worth it to pay for this option and is it available in the S60?
  • aveghteaveghte Posts: 68
    It appears that there are two differences between the 2003 and 2004 S60's.

    First the 2.4T model has been upgraded to a 2.5T engine with 208 horsepower and 236 torque, a 5% upgrade on horsepower but almost a 20% upgrade on torque. Does this mean there is a significant improvement in acceleration in normal driving conditions (either from a stop or when passing on a 2-lane highway)?

    Second routine maintenance is now included for 3 years and 30,000 miles which makes the Volvo S60 more similar to the Saab 9-3 and other competitors like Mercedes and BMW.

    Do these changes make it worth purchasing the 2004 S60 instead of the 2003 model? I am considering waiting until Spring 2004 so there will be incentives on the 2004 models similar to the current incentives on the 2003 models.
  • frank139frank139 Posts: 2
    Just purchased a '03 S60 Auto w/Metallic, Climate, Premium, MSRP = $31,995, Net = $25495 plus an additional $1500 check back as a current Volvo owner ('02 XC70)from a Loyalty promotion. Financed at 4.9%/48 not thru Volvo.
  • bcj2bcj2 Posts: 17
    Cagreenthumb, yes, you can get on call plus on the '03 (or '04) S60. I'm waiting for the '04 BMW 530 before making a purchase decision but narrowed the choices between the S60AWD and the BMW 530. I've done a ton of research on the S60. The on call plus worls like a built-in cell phone w/ dialing keypad next to the radio. The cath is whether the system will work w/ your existing cell provider. Apparently, it does NOT work w/ mine - Sprint.
  • companymancompanyman Posts: 3
    Sounds like a great deal. What state did you purchase in? Part of the reduction from MSRP to your purchase price must be the marketing support money from the factory. How hard did you have to negotiate before the dealer gave that up? Also, where did you find out about the "loyalty" rebate?
  • frank139frank139 Posts: 2
    Bought the S60 in was our 3rd Volvo in 5 years from the same Dealer...did not negotiate hard because of past relationship w/Salesman and my knowledge of available incentives on Edmunds...The Loyalty rebate came in the mail from Volvo Finance.
  • companymancompanyman Posts: 3
    I am shopping around in Connecticut. Would you share the name of the dealership and the salesperson? I am just looking for a fair deal with as little posturing as possible.

    Thanks in advance.
  • pegleggerpeglegger Posts: 40
    Have the R's arrived at dealers yet? Has anyone been able to compare the manual versus automatic? I've ordered an automatic and I'm a little nervous about the performance difference in the two (above and beyond normal difference between auto and stick).

    Also, any advice on the stereo upgrade? I ordered mine w/standard stereo and I'm just wondering if I should revise my order (I think it's about $1200; $800 w/sunroof pkg, which mine has). Worth it?

  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    Had a chance to briefly drive our first car, a manual of course.

    Wow, the engine is amazing!
    Spins up very fast, very smooth. The gearbox is better than any Volvo gearbox I've been around.
    The suspension modes are alot of fun. Sport seems to be the best for everyday use. The advanced setting is too stiff.

    Frankly, the car only works as a manual.
    I've seen the data on the automatic and it isn't worth the $.
    The 2004 S60 2.5T will be quicker than the auto R, and alot less $$$.

    Go for the manual if you can, the car will be alot more rewarding.
    Also thumbs up for the stereo upgrade.
    I've got the upgrade stereo in my C70 and I really enjoy having it.
  • nhaukapnhaukap Posts: 2
    Max - how is it the 2.5T will be quicker than the R, with nearly 100 fewer horses (92 to be exact) and about 65 fewer ft/lb torque? Certainly more than enough to make up for the weight difference. Just curious... :-)

    (And thanks for the insights on the R...I've got a V70R ordered, and while it was no small feat, I managed to convice my wife the manual would be superior (same with the stereo upgrade, too)...good to hear favorable remarks from you.)
  • pegleggerpeglegger Posts: 40
    Well, I'm stuck with the automatic, but I do wonder also how the 0-60 times can suffer that badly.

    I know it's more money, but I do look forward to the Atacama Leather and suspension settings, so I'm popping for the extra dough.

    I don't have a choice as far as an everyday driver (I have a fake leg), but I do plan on taking the manual out for a spin in August in Gothenburg on the Volvo test track. Then I'll really find out how much I miss out on. I can drive a stick, but not practical all the time.

    Thanks for the tip on the stereo. I'll call the rep tomorrow and see if I can still revise my order. It's only $$$.

  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    According to Volvo the R auto 0-60 times is @ 7.2 sec.
    The 2004 S60 2.5T 0-60 is 6.9 sec.
    The R auto, nicely equipped is @ $43,000
    The 2.5T nicely equipped is @ $35,000

    Remember, Volvo is limiting the torque in 1st and 2nd gears in the R auto, so all the horses don't show up. Plus the auto R is rated at 258 ft-lbs only, the 2.5T rating is 236 ft-lbs
  • pegleggerpeglegger Posts: 40
    Thanks for rubbing it in!

    I just couldn't resist the R, anyway. Plus, I went with the Overseas Delivery and it's pretty ritzy for the 20 R customers this August, so I just couldn't pass it up.

    My R is 40,370 with Atacama, roof, climate, paint options. Of course the trip is $3900 on top of that (but that includes business class tickets, meals, suite for 4 nights, an extended stay at the track, and a day cruise on a yacht).

    I have had some second thoughts about maybe going with the 2.5T, although I would have given up AWD on top of the other things. Oh well....
  • nhaukapnhaukap Posts: 2
    Ah, yes...I'd forgotten how hobbled the auto R is in the torque department (relative to the manual, that is). Although, I thought I had read a spec somewhere that stated a 0-60 time for the auto R sedan as 6.8, but can't find it now, so you're likely right. And I wasn't aware the the 2.5T was that quick, either - that 6.9 is a bit of a surprise! All the more reason I'm glad to have ordered the manual!
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 22,091
    are you comparing the auto R to the manual 2.5T? You must be. How can the 0-60 of the 2.5 be better in the 2.5T than the auto T5?

    '17 F150 Crew 2.7; '67 Coronet R/T; '14 Town&Country Limited; '09 LR2 HSE. 44-car history and counting!

  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 22,091
    Then where did those acceleration numbers come from? I find it REALLY hard to believe that the 2.5T, which weighs more than the '98 T5 and has less torque and hp, can beat out the T5. I'd have to see this for myself.

    But maybe the source for this 6.9 seconds has better numbers for the T5?? I've seen right around 7 seconds for the T5 (6.4 for the manual listed here on edmunds). Even if we're talking a dead heat, something is amiss. I would attribute it to the extra gear (that's a 5-speed auto, right?), but it still has to overcome the power and weight deficit.

    AND, what are the numbers from that source for the '04 T5?

    '17 F150 Crew 2.7; '67 Coronet R/T; '14 Town&Country Limited; '09 LR2 HSE. 44-car history and counting!

  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    There is no manual 2.5T available in the US.
    My comparison was between the 2.5T and R auto.
    Numbers come from Volvo.
    Also, the T5 auto is rated at 6.7 sec to 60 mph.

    The 98 T5 had 243 ft-lbs @ 2700 rpm.
    Best 0-60 time for the auto that I saw was 6.5 sec.
    The issue with the T5 is the fact that the engine must be wound up higher than the 2.5T to achieve the desired performance.
    The T5's performance advantage starts at 60 mph and goes up to its top speed. The faster you go in a T5 the faster it gets. Same with the R auto.
    Here in America we generally don't try to accelerate at speeds over 100 mph like they do in Europe.
    We find low speed acceleration to be more important, this is why the 2.5T feels faster and why its 0-60 times are competitve with the more powerful T5 and R auto. Now if you looked at the 0-100 times you would see a much bigger discrepancy.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 22,091
    that IS better 0-60 times than published in mags for the 98 T5. I wonder if mine actually does 6.5? :)

    But Edmunds also says peak torque on the '98 is at 2100, not 2700. Is 27 what volvo says? Are you able to access Volvo's published numbers for older cars? Am I able to get that view that info somewhere?

    I think it would be interesting to see what all 3 might be able to do with new ECUs. I wonder if the bigger displacement in the 2.5 could help it boost up to higher torque levels than a boosted T5. I'm sure the size of the turbo would be a big factor, but it would still probably spool up faster in the 2.5. Hmmmmmmm...

    oh, I can attest to the unbelievable punch from 60-100++ in my T5. Woohoo! Too bad there really is no place to do it safely on a regular basis.

    '17 F150 Crew 2.7; '67 Coronet R/T; '14 Town&Country Limited; '09 LR2 HSE. 44-car history and counting!

  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    Volvo does publish a book for their salespeople about the older cars. Edmunds is wrong.
    98 T5 peak torque is at 2700 rpm, you can feel this because below that speed the engine pulls slowly, above 2700 rpm the fun starts.

    A boosted T5 will always beat a boosted 2.5T, because of the larger turbo on the T5.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 22,091
    When I originally bought it, I read the peak was at 1800. I always knew this was off. However, I can say the fun definitely starts before 2700. The lag is not THAT bad. And a little brake standing up to 2K does tend to lay some rubber. I won't say it doesn't peak at 27, but it certainly doesn't lack from about 2K up until that peak. And now that I've adjusted the wastegate actuator rod a bit, it does feel less laggy when starting from a dead stop (i think new spark plugs and air filter helped, too :) ).

    by the way, looked up some other sources:
    msn auto says peak is 2400 says 2400
    my volvo owner's circle says 2700

    of course, I would trust Volvo to know what their car does, but it is weird that other sources don't publish the same numbers as Volvo.

    '17 F150 Crew 2.7; '67 Coronet R/T; '14 Town&Country Limited; '09 LR2 HSE. 44-car history and counting!

Sign In or Register to comment.