Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Volvo V70 / XC70
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
1) Stay away from the first year or two of a new vehicle or major redesign (like the '01 XC). This is pretty good advice for any vehicle you get into, but tends to especially hold true for Volvo. The longer the same vehicle has been in production the more time they have to work the kinks out. (I'd also never buy a demo, b/c those cars tend to be run pretty hard and who knows if it was broken in properly.)
2) Every manufacturer on Edmunds seems to make horrible cars if you read the posts from owners. Why? Because that's the reason people are posting and they sought out help in the first place. The happy owners seem much less likely to post except for Subaru for which Edmunds is a pretty big gathering place. For a similar experience with Volvo owners go to volvoxc.com.
3) I believe Volvo has a great lease deal on the XC70 right now...$350/month. Plus all new Volvos now include free scheduled maintenance for the first 36,000 miles and you're completely covered by warranty for the life of the lease.
-Jon
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/tco/2004/index.html
You can read the details in the link but I believe their calculations include maintenance and repairs over a 5 year period with 15,000 miles per year.
-Jon
You might try going to volvoxc.com and doing a search. I believe there were some problems with the parking brake mechanism that was causing a shudder, but if that's the case it should be an easy fix for your dealer. Was the dealer able to reproduce the problem?
-Jon
We really like the car and have maintained it religiously. I kind of figure my true purchase price is $20,400 once I figure I won't have to pay the mileage penalty.
Does anyone have a feel for whether this is a good deal? Is Edmunds and NADA right, or is KBB right?? And why the huge difference??
As for the car, I, like you, have had a great experience with Volvo. We previously leased a 1998 XC, but loved the new body style and convinced wife that more HP was better than AWD and SUV styling, so leased a new 2001 T5. Anyway, I love this car enough to keep it long term. Only problems have been the really minor stuff like bulbs burning out and the crappy original Pirelli tires. I am thinking of buying the Volvo extended warranty however, just because all these posts make me nervous. I plan to keep the car at least another 5-7 years.
I wish Volvo would add AWD with the T5 in the S60 and V70...the R is sweet but too expensive for me, plus it comes with ultra slick summer tires so you're pretty much forced to buy a new wheel/tire combo for winter, and it sounds like the ones that fit aren't cheap!
I agree about AWD - I would love to step up to an R, but like you I just can't justify the price... alhtough I hasten to add that the price is extremely reasonable for that level of performance. I also agree about the tires... I've had enough trouble with the 17" tires on the T5 developing bulges and leaks after hitting potholes, etc. (although haven't had a single problem since I got rid of the Pirelli tires), the 18" wheels and low profile tires on the R, while extremely cool, are probably not all that practical.
Peace
In the first place, the odds are high you will spend more to buy one than you will get back in repairs. Otherwise, the car company would not be making enough money to offer them.
So if you don't get your ~$2k back in repairs in years 5 and 6 (covered years, after the std warranty expires) you have lost money. If you do get ~$2k in repairs, or a little more, then you have paid for them IN ADVANCE.
Only if you wind up in exactly that covered period with a fairly catastrophic failure (such as engine or transmission uncovered by a powertrain warranty) do you come out ahead. But again, what are the odds?
And we are not talking medical insurance, either. If you can afford to buy a Volvo, then even a "catastrophic" failure in a car is unlikely to wipe you out. So the rational decision is to put that money in the bank and save it for those repairs or your next car.
On the point of being able to absorb these costs, since one can afford to purchase a Volvo: I'm sure that I am not alone in financially stretching to buy a car that should be safe and last a long time, without extreme/excessive repair costs. While the stereotypical Volvo owner may, indeed, be able to handle such costs (whether through savings or out-of-pocket payments), I'm sure there are quite a few (former) Volvo owners who cannot casually accept/absorb such costs. Beyond this, experiences like mine and so many others can't be good for Volvo, in the long run. It might not be a matter of being 'wiped out'...but, $3000-4000 per year in repair costs, for 2-3 straight years is ridiculous and, for most people, money that could be saved and/or better spent.
As more viable alternatives emerge (Subaru, among others vs. the more popular Volvo models like XC), many others with the means to afford a Volvo will go elsewhere. And a Subaru extended warranty (whether absolutely necessary or not)for half the price of one from Volvo is just another example/reason why smarter car buyers will move away from Volvo. Seems like less a matter of disposable income than intelligence and better things on which to 'dispose' that income - like your kids, your house, a vacation, retirement accounts, donations to good causes (other than Ford/Volvo, your local Volvo dealer and/or Volvo mechanic).
There are just a few features (especially seat comfort and whiplash protection) that keep me spending more than I think I should have to in order to own a V70 instead of something else.
And maybe we've been lucky in never needing to shell out $3-4k/year in repairs for 2-3 straight years for any car we've owned (1 Subaru, 2 Volvos, 1 Ford and 1 Honda).
1 - If you choose to get one, stick with the manufacturer plan. The third-party companies are in it for the money and as some of you know, they have been going out of business when their reinsurers go bankrupt. Plus, with the manufacturer plan, they are much more likely to cover a borderline repair to keep you happy and returning as a customer.
2 - As vehicles get more complicated and labor rates go up, the extended warranty can cover seemingly small things that can really add up. It doesn't have to be a catastrophic engine or transmission failure to make the warranty worth the cost - any number of electrical or electronic components can cost hundreds or thousands in parts and labor to replace.
kcram
Host
Smart Shopper and Wagons Message Boards
Finally, I think Volvo still can justify a significant premium over Subaru when you look at safety, styling, luxury and available features. In addition, I am not a fan of the "SUV-ized" wagons like the Outback or the Cross Country... I prefer the sporty more performance oriented look and drive of the T5, which Subaru really doesn't offer.
On the Subaru warranty: there is a longer term warranty available (up to 100,000 mi.), but with my driving history the 5 year was a better fit. In any case, the Subaru warranty is substantially cheaper, for the longer-term package, as well.
Which brings me to the Volvo 'premium'. Maybe in the past...but, the new Subarus are an easy match to the Volvo XC in safety and available features (objective) and, in my subjective, humble opinion, in styling and luxury, as well. Except for the seats (Volvo is exceptional here), the top-of-the line '05 Outback is more than a match for the XC. And, when one looks both at repair records for 5 years (and more) out, the Subaru is arguabley not only a match but superior to the Volvo. At some point for virtually every Volvo owner, the 'premium' is $1000's more in repair payments, in addition to the $1000+ for comparable extended warranties. Nice vehicle...not THAT much nicer.
I realize that it is possible that these forums attract more negative feedback/comments than positive; but, there is ample 'objective' evidence that Volvo has a long-standing problem with excessive, expensive problems and considerable 'subjective' - and personal, anecdotal - evidence that the 'premium' is an expensive delusion based as much/more on status than reality.
I really liked driving my XC. I wanted so much for the car to be mine for many more relatively trouble-free years. I probably could have lived with the 'premium' of, maybe, a $1000 more per year - especially, since I was already in for the big initial investment of $36,000. I admit to liking the aura/status of driving a Volvo (my 5th, going back to a wonderful 1967 122 couple. I held on for a ridiculously long time, hoping that no more major repairs would spoil the pleasure of the car and the intermittent but short-live illusion that I was driving one of the earlier Volvos that I so enjoyed (and could afford) and that built Volvo's enviable reputation. Silly me....Every month there was another shake or shilly or warning light that jarred me out of my reverie.
Ask the mechanics who work on Volvos, especially at independent garages. Ask mechanics who work on both Volvos and Japanese cars (and even many American cars). Without exception, every one of the 10+ mechanics I spoke with said to buy a Subaru over a Volvo. The Volvo specialists lament the poor design and fallibility of the late 90's and beyond vehicles. They make nice livings doing the work, but they clearly do not respect the cars.
Finally, at the risk of appearing an excessively zealous convert, I bet the T5 is a great ride. I really don't want to pee on your parade.
For other shoppers, though, the '05 Legacy GTs might be an interesting comparison.
Good luck. Really.
Your post is very subjective so I won't get into it too much b/c you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I will point out some facts regarding your claim that Subaru safety equals Volvo.
First, initial testing of the Outback brakes are extremely poor. Motor Week found the new Outback's 60-0mph braking to be 155 feet, which means the XC70 will stop 20 feet sooner! (To put this in perspective, 155 feet is worse than a Ford F-150.) Car and Driver found the Outback XT 70-0mph braking to be 204 feet, which is worse than a Pathfinder Armada. Adding such a significant amount of horsepower without making a similar improvement in the braking system is irresponsible IMO.
Secondly, the only Subaru to offer a stability system is the top of the line VDC model. Again, not even making this an option on a car with 250 hp and 250 ft-lbs of torque (XT) leads me to believe Subaru has lost their focus on safety.
Thirdly, you remark that Subaru equals Volvo on available features. Subaru does not offer a navigation system, nor do they offer HID headlights. I don't believe they offer a rear camera. They do not offer the new BLIS system that's a new safety first for Volvo on 2005 models. We've already covered the lack of even a basic stability control system, not to mention a higher end system like Volvo offers (DSTC), except for the VDC Outback. Volvo covers all required maintenance for 3 years/36,000 miles on all cars. I believe Subaru is only offering this as a promotion on select vehicles. Do they offer IAQS, rain sensing wipers, and a rear leveling system? What about an adjustable suspension system, like Volvo's 4C system? (Available on the XC70 for 2005.)
Lastly, if Volvo's are so expensive to own, why does Edmunds rank them as having the lowest true cost to own in their class?
On a more subjective note, I personally prefer the styling of the XC over the Outback. I don't care for the sloping back of Legacy/Outback wagons which also hurts functionality by cutting off usable cargo space.
Hey, I think Subaru's are great cars. We may even get a Legacy GT as our second vehicle (since it looks to have a much better braking system than the Outback). I'm just trying to point out some objective facts that would lead someone to favor Volvo over Subaru.
Thanks,
Jon
The 05 Legacy GT does look like a very nice car... and has received some very positive reviews.
Good points. Indeed, so much of a discussion like this is subjective, especially on the aesthethics of each vehicle. (BTW, I DO like the look of the XCs, as much as I like the new OBs. And, I was sorely tempted to buy another one...until my wife and son talked some $ense into me and shook me out of my longstanding, Volvophilia-induced denial/amnesia. I really do like Volvos! But, as I haven't won any lotteries lately....)
Just a few responses, though:
On the brakes: there is quite an extensive discussion on this at the Subaru forum. I defer to the more knowledgeable participants there. For my part, while this is an important point, there seems to be less of a consensus among reviewers on the brakes than your two cites indicate. Still, a point worth looking at for the longer haul.
On the other options: frankly, I don't care about any of the ones you list, other than stability control. I do believe that Subaru has made a major mistake in limiting its availability (even as an option) to the top of the line 3.0R/VDC, which is the model I purchased. Indeed, I would have purchased a less expensive model were the VDC option available down the line with Subaru. I'm definitely not happy with Subaru's packaging/marketing decision here: I think they are mis-serving consumers and ripping off those who really care about safety (a huge part of the Subaru market). My opinion is that this is, indeed, the most important auto safety development in the last decade. It should be available on ALL cars, from every manufacturer. My understanding is that it has been an option, not standard equipment on the Volvos. Still, Volvo dserves credit for making it available, I think, on most/all vehicles. Bad move by Subaru.
Don't care about Navi, HID headlights (headlights are much improved on the '05 OBs), back-up camera (though my car does come with a back-up sensor), etc. Don't know what BLIS or IAQS are - but I imagine they are good things to have. (My '99 came with some version of DSTC...and, it was, in fact, the last thing (straw) that malfunctioned as I was deciding on whether to dump the car. The minimum $550 charge made the decision easy.) So, in some ways, I'm not sure that all of these add-ons are necessary. Do they meaningfully improve safety or performance and/or are they really worth the extra cost at purchase or down the road as they require substantial expenditures to fix. I remember a time when Volvos were the choice of the safety-conscious without price tags (or maintenance costs) that dramatically reduced/limited the market to the VERY well-off. Not so long ago, Volvo status was mostly (and, perhaps, snobbily) due to being safety- obsessed...seems more, now, to be a statement of wealth/means.
My question is: how much will the 2005 cost with these options? My guess is that the MSRP will be $41,000+. Probably a $7000 or more difference from the top-of-the-line (pretty comparably -equipped) OB VDC!! Seems to me that pricing like this makes it clear that Volvo sees their market as comfortably 6-figure families who can handle/dont'care about not only the initial differences in cost but long-term costs that add thousands more to owning a Volvo. I don't know: stretching it out 5 or even 10 years (since both vehicles have strong records for longevity), is the Volvo really $10,000+ more safe and better? Regardless of cost-to-own estimates, this is a middle of the road estimate in the overall, 5-year cost-to-own difference between your described XC and the top-of-the-line VDC. We're not poor...we don't usually have to struggle to meet our expenses, but: $10,000 for a car or....?
So, perhaps, beyond subjective/aesthethic preferences, IMHO it comes down to $$$$. I think, for years to come, I'd feel both extremely safe and aesthethically content, as well as more financially flexible/secure with the Subaru. Both subjective and objective, I guess.
That's it, for me, If there is a response, I will read it respectfully, but refrain from taking up any more space with my ramblings.
Peace,
Richard
Volvo's marketing problem is that, after selling "safety" for so many years, they are now in a world where even economy cars seem to have airbags everywhere but the rear end. So how do you convince people to pay extra for safety engineering that runs more than skin deep? 5 stars is as good as it gets. They don't give 6 for better head restraints. And it may not be obvious you are sitting in one of the most comfortable car seats in the world until you've been on a long trip and your back feels as good as when you set out. Now they've been trying for 10 years to add luxury and performance to their brand image. Maybe a little snob appeal is part of that strategy too.
Sure, you will find lots of examples of people for whom it paid off. But the reality is that for each one of those, there are 9 or 10 who didn't get their money back, and you will probably not hear from them. Good cars usually don't have major break downs in the first 5-6 years. I owned an 850 GLT for 8 years and never had anything to do on it other than regular maintenance. Add to that the fact that you may total the car in an accident or even sell the car and totally lose that money.
Now, if the peace of mind is that important to you then by all means go ahead. But the way I look at it, if I buy one of those warranties I have less than 10% chance of breaking even or coming out ahead, but I have a 90% chance of losing money. And that by the way, is what insurance companies count on to earn a living.
Personally I would just invest that money in a way that I can get it back out quickly. This should give you some peace of mind in case of bad luck, and chances are you qill come out ahead and even have a nice down payment for you next car.
Not so sure this is the right way to think about it. First, I would put the odds of breaking even or coming out ahead much greater than 10%, especially when we're talking about ownership years 3 to 7 and in the range of 40,000 to 100,000 miles with gobs of expensive little electronic gadgets to fizzle out in a heavily optioned car. We had a Ford Expedition that this happened on starting at around 40K miles... e.g., heated seat quit working: cost to repair = $500. An extended warranty could pay for itself with just one major problem.
Second, just because insurance companies make money doesn't mean insurance is bad. My guess is that you have life, health, auto and probably several other types of insurance policies, and that the companies who sold them to you are all very profitable. Have you recouped your investment on any of them? Probably not, and in fact the odds are probably far less that you will than they are that someone will recoup their investment on an extended warranty, especially on a European or American car.
Generally, extended warranties do no such thing. They are a savings gamble, with the deck stacked more or less against you. But if the dealer offers you one that is not too overpriced, and it gives you peace of mind, then maybe that has more value to you than some optional feature with zero potential to ever save you a cent.
Check out the Extended Warranties discussion too.
Steve, Host
I think you're right, Tom. I had always adhered to the early Nader-principle on deductibles, warranties, etc: get high deductibles on insurance and avoid extended warranties. That is, until my latest XC just drained our bank account dry. Paradoxically, I would be glad if I never needed to utilize the extended warranty on my new Subaru...I would feel that the car was worth the purchase price and was living up to its reputation for reliability. And, at less than $1200, I wouldn't feel that it was too excessive a price to pay for peace of mind after the high-anxiety feelings of the last 3 years with my XC. Should I never need to take advantage of the extended warranty, maybe this new experience will guide me back to my previous practice of nixing the warranties.
BTW/FWIW....one more point on safty: the Australian New Car Assessment Program - crash and safety testing new cars in Australia - gives the Outbacks with side curtains it's highest rating ever, higher than the tested Volvos (S80 and XC90).
Not trying to stir things up, again; just pointing out that comparable/greater safety is available in a comparable package for significantly less money.
Peace.
Not trying to stir things up, again; just pointing out that comparable/greater safety is available in a comparable package for significantly less money."
One must not confuse gadegts and test results with realf-life safety. Most car companies engineer their cars to do well in tests, but Volvo engineers its cars for real-world safety. Volvo is the only car company I'm aware of that does extreme roll-over tests. They also took an XC-90 and t-boned the new S40 with it. Volvo also studies cars that had fatalities to see what they could do better. While I am actually considering a Subaru because I believe it provides better value, I would still choose a Volvo if had to go into a "known crash".
Also, don't lure yourself into thinking that Subarus are more reliable then Volvos. Subaru has been experiencing tons of serious problems in recent years, and they have actually slipped below Volvo in some stats.
In Sweden Volvo even has accident teams that travel to accidents involving Volvos within a certain distance of their headquarters (in fact, they are sometimes first on the scene). They do this to study real life crashes and how to prevent them and improve safety.
Another example is their use of boron and super high strength steel...no other auto manufacturer does this. They even promote how difficult it is for body shops to work with! This obviously has additional expense up front (more expensive materials) and could have expense down the road in repairs, but that's what you get in a Volvo.
There are lots of other examples as well, and safety is certainly not the only reason to buy a Volvo, but it is part of the reason they sell at a premium.
This gives you the added benefit of being able to remove the system for short trips and not being bugged to watch a video while you're going to the mall (with a three and a half year old daughter, I REALLY appreciate this feature!) The DVD is only dragged out for really long trips (like our semi-annual Iowa-to-Massachusetts run.)
I certainly wouldn't cut into the factory headrests.
Whatever the reasons,then, Volvo continues to build its image on safety...understandably so, as a true pioneer in auto safety. No doubt that I bought all 5 of my Volvos primarily on this basis and, I'll admit, the cache that owning a Volvo carried: made me look like a smart safety and cost-conscious consumer and, dare I say, suggested a certain intellectual/cultural/even political perspective. At least until the mid-90's, however, it did not indicate top 10-15% wealth-income. I'm not sure of the dynamic, but a convergence of pricing-marketing decisions seemed to shift Volvo into a new niche, reflecting a cultural/economic shift that marked the 90's, particularly in the US. Value was now secondary to appearances/status and the latter carried a price tag, often separate from real value. No doubt the higher cost of European labor factored in, too; but this was always a factor in pricing and, until the 90's, did not drive prices so much higher, at least for Volvo. (BTW, I am willing to pay a fair wage 'premium' for most products - I do not want to be complicit in the dishonest, destructive corporate BS about the adverse effects of high wages on costs - it's an obscene corporate profit-drive/greed, not worker wages or productivity problems that drive down wages without commensurate reductions in price...a long-term practice spun out of control in the 90's. BTW, one should also look at how Volvo and other Swedish manufacturers changed corporate practices in the 90's, as Sweden came under great pressure to re-orient/adjust to the more rapacious global economy.).
Anyway, subjective and anecdotal 'evidence' is important on matters like this - though always subject to careful consideration (look at some of the rejoinders to my complaints about the excessive repairs on my '99 XC), In the end, we are left with more solid measures like crash test results as, perhaps, the most objective comparative measures of safety/value. And, IMHO, things like the Australian crash tests indicate that the new Subarus might well be superior to Volvo. If, indeed, the Subarus received the highest scores ever doesn't that sorta/kinda undercut the 'safety-justifies-premium' argument??
If one likes the Volvo better - so be it; if one does not have to worry about the significantly higher maintenance costs on top of the significantly higher purchase price - so be it; but, in many ways it seems to me that Subaru is now a very smart alternative to the Volvo and that it is hard to justify the $7000-10,000+ Volvo 'premium' based on safety. Maybe Subaru has been taking over the Volvo niche of old??
Most automakers do like to crow about safety, but its mostly a monkey see monkey do philosophy.
The Japanese especially don't innovate in the safety arena. The go along well after someone else has led the way. Virtually all automotive safety advances were pioneered by 2 motor companies, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo. It's no surprise that these 2 companies are still at the forefront of safety development.
What was the last safety advance that Subaru pioneered?
As for crash tests, yes they can be a good yardstick. But they are not always indicative of real world experiences. Automakers know what the test criteria are. Cars can be designed to pass a test, yet fail in the real world. Also, testing criteria can vary considerably. The DOT test and the European NCAP test have some signifgant differences. For example, NCAP decrees that car front ends must be made extremely pliable in order to protect pedestrians who are hit by a passing car. DOT has no such standard. This is whay Volvo and alot of other Euro brands do poorly in the IIHS bumper test. A test that has nothing to do with vehicle occupant safety.
Also, no one tests for rollover or rear end impacts. these accidents are quite common yet no testing is done by the DOT or IIHS. The DOT roof standard was written in the 1960's, and SUV's are exempt. When was the last time you saw a motor comapny deliberately roll one of their SUV's for the press in order to showcase its roof strength? Answer: Volvo
Finally, safety test criteria is a moving target.
The P2 cars, like the Volvo S60 and S80 were designed inthe late 90's. Subaru is testing a brand new design. Volvo's P2 platform is alreay obsolete by Volvo standards. Even though it was the first car(S80) to get a perfect score in the IIHS test in 98. The new P1 car, the S40 is a stronger design. When the next S60 and S80 are unveiled in 2 yrs you will see Volvo at the pinnacle once again.
As an aside, Volvo's have never been cheap. But they are better values today. Case in point. The new S40 starts @ $25,000 with alot of standard equipment. The 1993 240, a car that was 18 yrs old at that point was @ $23000 with fewer features and safety devices.
The best yardstick, in my mind, is the death rates compiled by insurance companies, like this one: http://www.folksam.se/engelsk/ . I used to have an American equivalent, but I can't find it anymore...
I was told that I needed special T-track adaptors
Why? Does the box bring them?Thanks in advance .
I am curious as the how well the XC70 handles sandy beaches... we looked at the XC90, goes without saying that it is a fantastic car, but out of our price range... but looking more closely at the cars, seems that they have the same AWD system, ground clearance is almost indentical at 8.2" for the wagon and 8.9" for the SUV...
I would appreciate any feedback. I am also looking for information regarding the 3rd seat in the wagon, how old do kids actually have to be to use it, and can it be installed by the dealer, say if we were to be a used vc70 without the seat.
Thanks everyone in advance for your help!
As for the 3rd seat in the wagon, it faces backward. It's meant for children between the ages of 5-10(roughly).
It is most commonly a dealer installed item. It can be installed at any time.
Thanks.
The more common XC70 w/ Prem pkg, tour pkg and Xenons won't get close.
The 2005 is not a redesign, just new bumpers and headlights/taillights.
2005's are scheduled for October.
As for the 01's. The vast majority were very good cars and a major improvement over the 98-00 V70 XC.
But not under $30,000 as you had indicated.
Also, the 2005 engine doesn't change at all.
The interior will be updated as you have described.
Of course, you won't be able to buy that car for $34000.
It comes down to what do you want to spend?
Under 30k? Buy the used XC70.
Under 35k? Buy the new 04
40K? wait for the 2005.
tidester, host
http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr072504.htm
A Legacy, albeit a sedan variant, fails the first IIHS side-impact test (which is quite a tough test with its taller barrier). The cause traced to airbags "folded incorrectly" at the factory, prompting a recall.
Then the corrected version does only "marginally" in the IIHS side-impact test!
Would an Outback have performed the same? Quite possibly, and at least probably would have had the same faulty airbag.
It's a shame that an outside agency's test has to find Subaru's faulty assembly.
Perhaps a V70 wouldn't have done well either in IIHS test. But it's hard to imagine it doing worse.