2008 Volvo XC70/V70

caliberchiccaliberchic Member Posts: 402
edited July 2014 in Volvo
Discuss the new 2008 Volvo XC70/V70 here.


  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,003
    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??? :(

    '94 Pajero 2.8TD, '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c, '21 WRX, '20 S90 T6, '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel, '97 Suzuki R Wagon, '92 325i, '97 Alto Works, '96 Opel Astra, TWO 4wd '97 Pajero Minis (1 turbo auto and 1 N/A manual); Wagoneer L on order; and in queue for Lucid Air Pure, Blazer EV, and Fisker Ocean.

  • caliberchiccaliberchic Member Posts: 402
    Your own topic, thanks for pointing that out. :)
  • jim314jim314 Member 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.
  • yakrideryakrider Member Posts: 4
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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.

  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member 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.
  • tgkoenigseggtgkoenigsegg Member Posts: 52
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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.
  • johnnyvolvo07johnnyvolvo07 Member Posts: 29
    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.
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Member Posts: 1,150
    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.
  • johnnyvolvo07johnnyvolvo07 Member Posts: 29
  • crestonavecrestonave Member Posts: 209
    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 Member 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 Member 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.
  • ricksv70ricksv70 Member Posts: 12
    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 Member 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 Member 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.
  • ageorgeageorge Member Posts: 9
    I cant find any reference to a third seat in the 08. Thats a deal killer for us if that's the case.
  • jim314jim314 Member Posts: 491
    Who would you put in a rear-facing 3rd row seat of a V70/XC70? These cramped seats are not as safe as the regular seats in a rear end collision. If you need three rows, get an XC90 or another large midsize or fullsize SUV or a large minivan.
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    I'm not sure if the 2008 has the 3rd row option, but I agree, it's great - it's a big reason why we chose the V70. It not only transforms the V70 into a 7 passenger car, but it's also great for securing groceries, shopping bags, etc. - preventing any soft-sided cargo from sliding/spilling.

    I also love watching the reactions of drivers behind us when we are stopped at a light and the kids wave and/or make faces at them. :P
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    "Who would you put in a rear-facing 3rd row seat of a V70/XC70?"

    Uh, generally kids 12 and under fit fine - and depending on the relationship, maybe the mother-in-law.

    "These cramped seats are not as safe as the regular seats in a rear end collision."

    Red meat isn't as healthy as fish. So what?

    "If you need three rows, get an XC90 or another large midsize or fullsize SUV or a large minivan."

    Actually, the V70 is perfect for someone who doesn't need/want an XC90, SUV, or minivan.
  • jim314jim314 Member Posts: 491
    It is widely reported that the most common collision geometries are front-to-front ("head-on") at some angle and front-to-side ("T-bone"), but front-to-rear ("rear ender") does occur. Also it is possible for a vehicle to do a 180 deg rotation ("swap ends") and make rear end contact with another vehicle or a fixed object

    The occupants of a 3-row seat in a V70/XC70 are in the rear crumple zone.

    I have worked as an automobile crash researcher and I have spent many hours in automobile salvage yards. I remember once seeing a late 1990's or early 2000's model Volvo wagon which had been rear ended hard on the left side. The hatch was pushed almost to the second row seat on the left (driver's side).

    You can say that there is risk in life, etc., and so there is, but the use of the 3rd row seat puts the occupants there at assymetrical risk compared to other occupants of the vehicle and raises ethical problems.
  • jim314jim314 Member Posts: 491
    I own a base model 2004 V70 NA 2.4L (5A) and my wife owns a base model 2007 FWD XC90 3.2 (6A) 5 passenger. I understand the wish for high fuel economy. I get well over 30 mpg on the interstate and the best we can get in the XC90 is in the low 20s mpg. The mileage around town is much less than I would like.

    But the XC90 is absolutely wonderful on trips. I have not tried the 3rd row seat in an XC90, but I would consider it adequate for a defensible level of crash protection. A V70 is simply too small to include a 3rd row seat.

    If I had a V70 with a third row seat and I needed to use it, I'm sure I would, but I'd be nervous the whole time and if someone would be injured in it, I'd feel that I had taken a chance that I should not have.

    As far as purchasing that option so that I would have that capability, I would not do it. If I were in a decison making position at Volvo, I would discontinue offering the 3rd row seat in the V70 because it is enabling and encouraging the user to exceed the design capability of the V70, and would expose Volvo to a product liabilty lawsuit should some tragedy occur.
  • stmssstmss Member Posts: 206
    I think I recall reading somewhere that it is now only a dealer installed option for 2008. I have one in my 99 from the factory. At the time there were very few 7 seaters other than mini vans. It is a good option if used as intended. I think Volvo should continue to offer it as it sets it apart from the other wagons - Saab, BMW, MB. I don't think the consumer should need to buy a mini van or SUV just because they want occasional 3 rd row seats.

    We used ours only for casual use in the early years. It hardly gets any use now as the kids are all too big.
  • jim314jim314 Member Posts: 491
    Your defense of this is as good a defense as can be given of getting the 3rd row seat in a V70. We all take risks. A person could well analyze the risks and benefits and decide that overall that it is a risk worth taking. For a particular person it might even be safety neutral, in total, and it enable them to consume less fuel.

    In my 07 V70 the spare tire and the battery are under the deck behind the 2nd row seat. I can imagine that the battery stays where it is, but what happens to the spare tire when the 3rd row seat is installed? Maybe a spare can no longer be carried, and one must rely on a can of sealer and a 12V air pump. Some vehicles come that way!
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    Our main criteria for a family car was that it have a 3rd row seat. We are a family of 4, so we don't need it often, but when we do need it, it is a great convenience. Our 2004 V70 didn't come from the factory with the 3rd row seat (although it was an available option). We had the dealer install it.

    Even dealer installed, it is functionally identical to the factory installed version.

    Regarding using the 3rd row, I agree that it cannot be used as a functional seat on a regular basis. When it's occupied, it leaves little to no space for cargo. So while we would never want to take a trip with the kids sitting back there (where would you put your luggage?), we appreciate having it one those occasions when we take the neighbors kids to school in the morning or take the kids and their friends to the movies.

    We had a Buick Rendezvous before, and I rememeber reading all the hoopla about 3rd row safety when the first three-row crossover SUV's started hitting the market. Basically, the consensus was that any occupant of a 3rd row seat in a "wheelbase challenged" vehicle is at higher risk for injury. This would include any vehicle smaller than an extended w/b minivan or full-size SUV.

    So, according to the safety gurus, basically anything smaller than a Chevrolet Suburban is off the list. Personally, I think risk is a part of life and to "avoid" risk is to "avoid" life. I am "at risk" every time I drive to work, fly a helicopter, or go swimming (just owning a swimming pool is "risky"). I choose to "manage risk" and allow my kids go swimming, ride their bikes in the neighborhood, climb the tree in the backyard, and sit in the 3rd row of the Volvo.

    Personally, if the 3rd row seat had not been available in the V70, we wouldn't have bought it. We could have made due with a 6-person near-lux sedan like the Toyota Avalon, or gone for the Acura MDX (which itself is 3rd row "safety challenged"), but we both really liked the V70's unique combination of utility and comfort.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,003
    And let's not forget, if we were truly worried about every occupant being inside the safety cage, nobody would drive motorcyles or even convertibles, for that matter, since your head may not be protected (yes, some convertibles have a popup thingy, but that may or may not protect someone of my height).

    '94 Pajero 2.8TD, '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c, '21 WRX, '20 S90 T6, '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel, '97 Suzuki R Wagon, '92 325i, '97 Alto Works, '96 Opel Astra, TWO 4wd '97 Pajero Minis (1 turbo auto and 1 N/A manual); Wagoneer L on order; and in queue for Lucid Air Pure, Blazer EV, and Fisker Ocean.

  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118

    You reminded me of a discussion (and there were a number) I had here (in the Rendezvous forum I think) a few years ago talking about child carseats. The Reader's Digest version is that there was a report (IIHS?) that the safest position in a vehicle is the 2nd row middle (center) seat. A forum participant stated that it was unsafe to put your child in any seat other than the 2nd row center seat because of the risk of injury during a side collision.

    This discussion went around and around because, as you can imagine, one has to ask what do you do if you have more than 1 child? Do you place the kid you love the most in the middle?

    Another discussion involved purchasing a vehicle that is "5-star" crash test rated vs. a car that "only" has 3 or 4 stars. Does buying a mere "4-star" car mean you don't love your family as much as you neighbor with the "5-star" car?

    Stupid drivel if you ask me. Buy the car that fits your personal values, lifestyle, budget, etc. and then hit the road. Don't listen to people who will try to impose their values and opinions on you (why do people even do this?).

    I love the V70 because one weekend, my wife can go to the movies with our two kids and her best friend and her two kids all in one car. The next weekend, we can take a trip to Spokane and get better than 30 MPG. Then the next weekend, she can accompany me to a BMWCCA driving school and hit the skidpad, autocross, and emergency braking course in a car with basically sedan-level performance and handling.
  • stmssstmss Member Posts: 206
    For many families, buying a mini van or SUV just to have a 3rd row for part time use is akin to buying that pickup for the 2-3 times a year you go to home depot.

    We went to the V70 from a Plymouth mini van for a number of reasons (besides the obvious upgrade in quality, ride, performace etc).

    1. We have 3 kids and a middle row that could sit 3 was rare - even in mini vans in those days - usually it was 2 captains. Therefore - we had to put 1 kid in the 3rd row of the van all the time.
    2. The third row, despite adequate room, left only 1 foot between the glass and his head. Take a look at 3rd rows in any mid size SUV and van today - it is a bit better but not much. At least in the Volvo, the feet are at the back of the vehicle. So I don't necessarily buy the 'crumple zone' argument in all cases.
    3. We had only occasional use for 6 or 7 seater. So, it was better to take one vehicle with someone in the 3rd row than to take two vehicles. Is there less risk here - problably.

    So we were left with this - 3rd row all the time in a van, or part of the time in the Volvo. In my opinion, the risk of injury in a rear ender was higher in the van as the miles driven with someone in the rear seat was higher (by a large factor).

    BTW, the spare tire in my 99 is below the fold up 3rd row seats. But battery is under the hood.
  • jim314jim314 Member Posts: 491
    One of Volvo's big selling points has always been safety. We got our first Volvo in 1996 because we were at a certain point in life where we became especially safety conscious. At that time I was driving a 1989 Dodge Caravan SWB with 2.5L 5-spd manual and she was driving a 1991 Dodge Spirit 2.5L 5-spd man. (The latter was a positively terrific value in a safe, low maintenance, functional, and fuel efficient vehicle. The Spirit later became my vehicle and I drove it until the Spring of 2007 when I sold it cheap to someone who approached me about it for inexpensive daily commuting. It still ran great after 16.5 years and got 34 mpg on the interstate with the a/c on. )

    For camping and for hauling kids to various functions, the Caravan was terrific and it got excellent fuel economy when the speed limits were 55 mph (28 to 30 mpg highway). However, I became aware that this model year and trim level of Caravan was not as safe as we then wanted and so I sold it and my wife bought a base model 850 wagon (Volvo 855) for her and the newly lisenced teenage driver in our household to drive and I took the 91 Spirit. That model year the base trim Caravan did not have shoulder belts past the front seats, the 2nd and 3rd rows were low back, and I learned that it did not even have side door beams. It was classified as a truck and, like pickups, was extempt from the side door beam requirement.
  • jim314jim314 Member Posts: 491

    I loved the Caravan but sold it rather than trading in or selling the Spirit because the latter had the safety features I wanted.

    The 850 wagon was very cramped compared to the Caravan, but served its travelling function acceptably well, though not as good as a minivan. It 2004 it was totalled in a guardrail smack and 720 deg rollover on a tollway when my wife was the sole occupant. A pickup two cars in front of the 850 slammed on its brakes in the middle lane to attempt to use an exit which it had almost passed. My wife swerved into the lane next to the guardrail, lost control, the 850 began fishtailing, hit and rode up on the smooth concrete guardrail with the left front corner, and rolled twice about the longitudinal axis, swapped ends and was reflected back into the middle lane. It ended up on the wheels in the center lane facing opposite to the original direction of travel beyond and now facing the car which had been in front of her.

    She was stunned but totally unhurt, not one bruise, did not even have to take an aspirin. She was unaware she had rolled, until witnesses told her so. She taken a very expensive carnival ride.

    No airbags deployed and she did not contact any other vehicles. The 850 was scraped and dented on the left side, the front, the roof at one A-pillar crushed in maybe 4 inches, and the right side was all scraped up. The hood was buckled and the radiator leaking coolant. All the windows had been up and both front ones were broken out and missing, the windshield was cracked all over but in place. If she had not been wearing her lap/shoulder belts she would have been partially or entirely ejected through a front window.

    I think the 91 Spirit would probably have done about as well in this accident as the 850, but the 89 Caravan would probably not have.

    She got a 2004 base model V70 non-turbo (no dynamic stability control in the base one on the lot) to replace the wrecked 850 and drove it four years until she decided to get a Volvo with dynamic stability control. She wanted another V70 base model, but none was available so she got a base model XC90 3.2 FWD and I got the 2004 V70 NA 2.4L 168 hp which I like a lot, though I hated to part with my Spirit. Although I do sometimes wish my 04 V70 had the manual tranny.

    However, the seats in the XC90 and the driving position make it much more comfortable for trips. I put a trailer hitch on the V70 (not cheap!) and intended for us to use an aerodynamic utility trailer for camping with our three dogs, but I couldn't decide on a trailer before we went on a trip so I got an 18 cu ft Thule roof box and it worked great. The mpg was still in the mid to upper 20's mpg depending on the speeds. An aerodynamic trailer would be much easier to load and unload and would probably have less mpg penalty, it that's possible.

    However, travelling in the XC90 (even with the base cloth seath) is much more comfortable that the 850 or the V70 (both base cloth seats) and with its 8.5 in ground clearance it handles rough potholed roads much better than a V70. I understand that the new XC70 (3.2L I6) has very comfortable seats, good ground clearance and somewhat better fuel economy that an XC90 3.2, and is AWD.
  • stmssstmss Member Posts: 206
    I checked my 08 brochure last night and it lists the auxillary seat as an available 'accessory' . This is the Canadian brochure. Which tells me it is either dealer installed or bought over the parts counter. It is not listed in the option or package lists. Best to confirm with your dealer.
  • jim314jim314 Member Posts: 491
    Go to http://www.volvocars.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/54532EF5-8A5E-4F25-8539-1C29145ACD97/0/V- - 70MY08NovPricelist.pdf and scroll down to the engine choices and further down to the fuel consumption of these choices. These mpg values are mpgUK which are to be divided by 1.2 to get mpgUS. Alternatively, divide the fuel consumption in metric units (L/100 km) value into 235 to get mpgUS.

    I wish Volvo would offer some of these more fuel efficient engines in the US. The 2.0L 4-cyl engines (diesel and gas) may be from Volkswagen. The 5-cyl engines are made by Volvo, and the 3.2L I6 is Volvo designed but manufactured at the Ford engine plant in Bridgend Wales. The smaller displacement engines are more fuel efficient aren't they? I suppose that these lower hp engines would not attract many buyers in the US. The diesels would attract buyers but right now they cannot be sold in the US presumably because they don't meet US environmental regs. Also Volvo may needs all the diesel engines they can manufacuture to satisfy the demand in Europe. I have heard that within two years Volvos with diesels will be available in the US.

    The UK fuel economy extra-urban test values may be biased high relative to the US EPA values. Of course it is possible (even likely) that the 3.2L I6 engine is tuned differently for the UK sales than the US.

    In the UK the 2008 V70 3.2 Geartronic is rated (extra urban or highway) at 36.7 mpgUK so 36.7/1.2 = 30.6 mpgUS. Starting with the metric value given 7.7 L/100km => 235/7.7 = 30.5 mpgUS highway. The urban (city) est is 18.3/1.2 or 235/15.4 = 15.3 mpgUS.

    In the US the 2008 V70 3.2 Geartronic is rated at 16 city and 24 mpg highway. What are the sources of this difference in est mpg values between the UK and the US highway? The city values are the same.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,003
    What are the testing procedures in the UK?
    I believe the EPA now runs at like 70 or 75 mph? maybe the UK procedures call for lower speeds?

    '94 Pajero 2.8TD, '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c, '21 WRX, '20 S90 T6, '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel, '97 Suzuki R Wagon, '92 325i, '97 Alto Works, '96 Opel Astra, TWO 4wd '97 Pajero Minis (1 turbo auto and 1 N/A manual); Wagoneer L on order; and in queue for Lucid Air Pure, Blazer EV, and Fisker Ocean.

  • antrow1antrow1 Member Posts: 4
    Hi All,

    I am here searching for issues reported by current 2008 XC70 owners. I see allot of postings about price so I will provide that info.

    I leased my 08 XC70 back in October for $520 per month for 30 months with 10K miles per year. It had an MSRP of $45095. I only paid Tax, tags and $500 deposit. This was the best deal I could find in my area. My friend leased one just after me with an MSRP of 42K and some change and he is paying $700.00 per month...OUCH.

    I love the car, it is very luxurious and has some cool features like the Personal Car Communicator, and Blind Spot Warning System. The down sides have been poor gas mileage that is usually around 17-18 mpg in mixed driving but mostly highway and a problems with rattles and steering issues.

    The rattles for the most part have been toned down by the service departments efforts but are still present to a certain degree. The steering issues have remained unresolved to date after 4 repair attempts. The car makes a popping or clunking sound the subframe is flexed during turning such as leaving a parking lot. I have put in a complaint and hope the car gets replaced under the lemon law. :lemon:

    Currently we are having our first winter storm and instead of driving the in the safety of our AWD Volvo we are commuting in a Prius. Our Volvo remains in a million peices at the dealer with the front end torn apart. I am affraid of what new issues will come up once it is "thrown" back together.

    On a better note, my friend has not yet had any issues with his XC70 so it may be that I just got a bad apple. Good luck to those of you getting ready to purchase a new one. You may need it!!! :sick:
  • nibsnibs Member Posts: 65
    Traded my 02 XC for the 08. I find the more I drive the 08 the more I like the 3.2 engine. It is definitely strong enough for the XC and it loves higher RPMs. The handling of the 08 is considerably better than earlier models. The adaptive steering is nice in town and on the highway.

    I live in an area that has five months of nasty Winter conditions. I've installed four Goodyear Nordic tires this Winter and the XC is like a tank. It loves the snow and leaves the 4x4s in the rear view mirror.

    What would I change??? I'd like the telescoping steering to extend a little further and I'd like deeper leg room while bringing the dash closer to the driver. I'd also like the console turned a little towards the driver as I like that cockpit feel. I would also like the console and shifter raised.

    I'm waiting for swedespeed tuning products to hit the market.
  • volvogalvolvogal Member Posts: 2
    ...apart from those listed on Edmunds(1K cash to cust owner loyalty & 2K manufacturer to dealer)?

    (new to the group and still trying to navigate my way through, thank you for your patience).
This discussion has been closed.