Howdy, Stranger!

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

Volvo S60



  • here's what I've been offered- anyone have any thoughts? In California on an 05 s60 2.5t w/metallic paint, premium and sport packages msrp 34660- sell for 31350 on a 3 yr 10k mile lease at 57% residual and .00002 m/f or .5% interest- plus they'll eat/waive my current volvo lease disposition fee and some minimal damage costs- and total drive off (1st mo's plus dmv) is $684

    i think other dealers will match the details but what're these new cars selling for out there- edmunds tmv has it at 32200 or so.
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    Yeah Volvo definitely has a few remaining electical demons, but they seem to be working hard to improve that, as ratings for '03+ Volvos have gone way up. Agree that "number of problems" doesnt tell the whole story, as you can make it home just fine when a bulb burns out. However, if iDrive isnt letting you start your own car...
  • pjdpjd Posts: 1
    I have am leasing a 2001 S60, 2.4T, which is coming out of lease in January. Am considering buying out the lease, but I am concerned about "maintenance costs" going forward. First time owning a Volvo and have heard many horror stories about cost to maintain vehicles, and strange electrical problems that can become costly to fix. Does anyone have any insight, recommendations, suggestions, etc?

  • I will be in the same boat a little later in 2005 and posted a similar question a few days ago. If you have had a trouble free car to date then I think that the car speaks for itself. However I think that the answer is to invest in an extended warranty; I believe 4 years cover costs around around $2,500.
  • DEFINITELY get an extended warranty. If just one of the computer systems in the car goes on holiday, the extended warranty has paid for itself. There are other non-electrical areas that could go out, anyone of which would also justify the cost of the extended warranty. Personally, I don't buy a car without getting an extended warranty. I like to keep the car 7 to 8 years and the extended warranty gives me peace of mind.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    No, the wheel stops will be fine.
    Just bolt up the new set and enjoy!
  • Seek opinions on value of the "dynamic stability and traction control" option for snow/ice driving. With AWD and "traction control" standard, is there much benefit to this option? Worth the price for the safety margin?
  • cmnottcmnott Posts: 200
    My T5 is an amazing winter car thanks to the DSTC. Traction is very good with winter tires and honestly, AWD really is redundant in these eyes if you have DSTC. AWD does not do anything to help a sliding vehicle that cannot make a corner, DSTC does.
  • Thanks for the insight. AWD & DSTC seemed the way to go, but with your info I need to consider DSTC but drop AWD. Advantages - save $, car weight (tiny bit better mpg?), and avoid potential AWD repairs later on. AWD is still possibility but it's good to understand options. Thanks again. Now if business picks up this may become really useful, not just dreaming.
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    I think you'll be fine with FWD and DTSC. The AWD system is a haldex unit with an almost 100% front bias anyway, so 99% of the time it IS basically a fwd car, with the rear wheels only coming on when it is absolutely necessary.
  • rezrez Posts: 41
    Has anyone experienced a squeaky noise when turning the steering wheel all the way, especially in wet conditions? It sounds like the tires are rubbing against the body. It's happening on our 4 month old S60 2.4 with 16" alloys. Also, experiencing bizarre oil gauge readings. Is Volvo fixing this problem for everyone? They must have to fix it, since it is a safety issue.
  • cmnottcmnott Posts: 200
    Not only that, centennial, it also opens doors for those who want a manual tranny. A T5 is not far off at all from an AWD.

    I am looking at my third Canadian winter and with my Michelin Artic Alpins already on, it is an excellent tires even in dry conditions. I would recommend this tire to anyone looking for a preimum winter tire. We get a lot of snow and with DSTC, it provides traction control when accelerating from a stop but more importantly, when the car slides it will be a huge bonus.

    Just for fun, around the corner of my house I will go around the corner, when snow covered without hitting the brakes. I turn the wheel, DSTC makes sure I amke the corner. Fun, but totally unnatural!
  • guyfguyf Posts: 456
    First step is to go to your dealer to give them a chance to look at it....
  • Is it true that they are dropping the S60 base model in 2005? I have seen 2005 S60's (non turbo) advertised in my area. Are they really 2004's?
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    The only 2005 non turbos that are available are the base model manual, cloth interior, no sunroof models.

    Note: The CA market did get some 2005 S60 2.4 cars w/ the Prem pkg. These were specced before the decision to drop the model for retail sale was made. Once these are gone they are gone.

    The 2005 S60 2.4 w/ a Prem pkg is only available for Fleet and Rental sales.
  • Thank you for the information! I was starting to think I wouldn't find one around my area. Actually, tonight I bought a 2005 Volvo S60 2.4 with a Premium package and the Climate package. It is Platinum Green metallic with gorgeous taupe leather interior. I live in MD, so I guess the MD market was able to procure a few non-turbo 2005 S60s. It was the last one on the lot. I was going to buy the turbo as a last resort, but I really didn't need it. The better value for me was the base 2.4 S60. I am looking forward to driving this beauty!
  • I have a non-turbo S60 by choice (as I had a 760 turbo where the turbo had to be replaced for a ton of money a couple of times when the car was no longer under warranty).
    When my S60 comes off lease early next year my choices are to buy it -or lease/buy a new one. Its disturbing to read therefor that I won't be able to even GET a new non-turbo version in 2005, at least one with leather and a half-way decent package. Geeze, not good.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    The reason that the non turbo was dropped is that the S40 is a better value at that price point.
    Also, Volvo wanted to take the S60 upmarket, thats why the new car has real wood and a better appearance.
    Don't judge the current Volvo Turbo's by your 760 experience. the old Garrett turbo's weren't as robust as the current Mitsu sourced ones. Also, the old turbos had no water cooling so you had to idle the engine before shutting down each time you drove the car. Alot of people didn't do this, and their Garrett turbos seized up.
  • Thanks for the "heads-up". I have to say no-one told me I had to idle the 760 turbo before turning the engine off.

    Would the 50 model be a reasonable equivalent of a non-turbo 60 as I can utilize the wagon space.
  • aegaeg Posts: 23
    I have been watching the forum and you seem to be recognized as someone who has a good feel for Volvos. I have had them for years currently 2001 x-country. My wife will be driving that car and need a a new one for myself that will become primary family car.(1child 11) I have toyed with the xc90(2.5) but underpowered for my taste and V-8 too costly and my wife has a thing about large Suv. Ideally if the S80 was redesigned that would be my car of choice. Thought of S60 even 60R but my wife thinks back seat too small and my daughter claims not enough leg room. Do you own a 60 and does the back seat bother you. test drove the infinity 35X nice car more leg room but safety an issue. read did not do well in rear ended crash test Even have considered 80 but depreciation awful and would only lease. Appreciate your thoughts. Oddly noticed that V50 has a little more leg room in back then 60. Stymied for the first time after all the years of buying volvos. lastly, require an all-wheel drive car.
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    Have you considered the new Subaru Legacy? The S60 is a great car, even better for '05, but rear set room is not one of its strong suits.
  • aegaeg Posts: 23
    Yes and the outback. Handled nicely The back seats have about one more inch but the seats are light years from the comfort of a Volvo. In fact they feel downright hard. Thanks for your suggestion. Do you have a S60 and have you considered the R.
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    Pretty much all cars are light years from Volvo when it comes to seats. Volvo seats are just magical. I dont own an S60 personally, but I have recommended used ones to friends as they are a great used car value. However, in the mid 30s AWD range, I think the '05 G35x is just a stronger buy as a new car. In terms of raw power, only the S60R (and only with a stick) can outrun the G, and I think the G35 has stronger handling (though I havent tried an S60R), more room, and more features.

    I didnt read much about G35 crash testing, but the car does have active head restraints; a Volvo staple that you wont get on any Acura or Lexus. My sales guy said the '05 G can stop in under 115ft from 60-0. Im not sure about how accurate that number is as it falls within sports car territory, but it is below S60 stopping distance. From my own test drive, the car felt like it had Porsche quality brakes, and without the S80's rediculously grabby brake pedal. Smooth stops even with all that braking power were no problem.

    Are RL, M35 AWD, or GS300 AWD a possibility?
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 22,655
    just had to chime in and disagree on the handling thing. Considering most reviews I've seen on TV and print of the S60R say the highest setting on the active suspension is "strictly smooth track use only," I'd have to think that says its a stellar handler (with the right tires, of course).

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

  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    "I think the G35 has stronger handling (though I havent tried an S60R),"

    I meant the G35 out handles an S60 2.5T or T5 (if you can even still find one). I havent driven an S60R, but I have driven an '04 2.5T, and the '05 G35x has heavier, more direct steering, and more road feel. The S60 is a very good handler, dont get me wrong, but its not as close to a 330i as G35 is.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 22,655
    oh, ok. yeah, I'm not sure how it compares to the other S60 models.

    Volvo is making new T5s, by the way. It now has more power and you can get the 4c suspension as an option (which, come to think of it, may very well give the edge to the T5 when it comes to handling - FWD is the big X-factor in that equation).

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

  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    Yeah, they killed the 2.3L and are now using the 2.4 with a big turbo. The T5 still seems kind of redundant though, just as it sort of always was. All of the magazines said T5 was never much faster than 2.4\2.5T, thanks to smaller displacement making the engine more "peaky". Even the R with an automatic is still limited to about 7 seconds or so in a 0-60 sprint, so even with more power, with the automatic a T5 will still be no match for G35's monster 3.5L and 270ft.lbs of torque.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    I do own an S60R.
    I took 4 other people with me on a long(150 mile) roadtrip. We were all pretty comfortable.
    Obviously, you have to move the front seats up a bit.
    We've had people 6'7" buy S60's and be comfortable.
    It sounds like the XC90 may work best for you.
    Did you consider the T6?
  • aegaeg Posts: 23
    Space wise xc90 makes sense. Yet as indicated earlier my wife has very strong feelings about buying an SUV no matter how green the volvo is. A while ago test drove T-6 did not love it. Acceleraton from dead stop not much better it seems than 2.5..passing on highway of course plenty of zest yet the gas mileage not great. In addition sounds like there have been more problems with t-6 and was told will be eliminated. Appears Volvo sees the problems with this car or not enough of contrast with 2.5.Will take a look again at s-60/r. In two years probably would be looking at new S-80, that would best fit my needs. Helps to know your passengers were not uncomfortable on long drive.

    For those debating S60R vs. G35. The differences in handling and power not a big issues but did read the G35 was rated poor in rear crash test. That is more of an issue for me. Appreciate your input though.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 22,655
    I agree it won't be as fast as the G35 in the low end.

    The T5 stood out on its own back before there was such a thing as the 2.5T, and just carried forward. So, at one time, the T5 badge really did mean more. I also think its much more of a "european fast." Here in the states, we are much more concerned with 0-60 and 1/4 mile. The T5 has always done its best at high speeds. For instance, its 50-125 mph power can destroy many cars that are much faster from 0-60. I don't know this for a fact off the top of my head, but my guess is that this also holds true when comparing it to the 2.5T. It may only be marginally faster to 60 but it probably widens the gap quite a bit when going beyond that.

    One last point is that, and I can't speak for the current batch of T5s, but the older ones were very inconsistent in their acceleration from car to car (I also think it didn't help that the S70 T5 gained a couple hundred pounds after its introductory year in '98). I've seen 0-60 times as bad as 7.6 seconds and as good as 6.0 (both of those examples are automatics - and both are times I have come within a couple of tenths of when testing my own car). And I believe some of that discrepancy can be attributed to the "peakiness" you mentioned (not to mention driver willingness to beat on the poor thing).

    '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.