• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Volvo V60 sports wagon headed to the US early 2014

the volvo seats are nice, but i thought the mazda 6 seats are better (just test drove the S60 T6 AWD and Mazda 6 GT back to back)

I really liked the volvo, but it is more than I am willing to spend right now.
 
phucheneh said:
They already made this car...it was called the 2008 V70...?
Click to expand...

I believe their sports model was the S60R (or, in wagon form, V70R). Those things were cool. The new one looks nice, but probably no stick, huh? I think the S60 Polestar has a comparatively antiquated 6-speed auto, which is a bummer.
 
Last edited:
Toastedlightly said:
The S60R I have will be up for replacement in a few more years...
Click to expand...

Nice ride! I actually looked into trading my E90 330i for one of those a couple of years ago - I really like them. They have, and I mean this in an entirely nice way, a slight Nordic weirdness I find very appealing.

Actually this Ferrari-humbling Volvo Amazon wagon is one of my favorite retro-mod cars of all time - http://jalopnik.com/5896181/amazing-788-horsepower-ferrari+slaying-volvo-wagon-seeks-new-owner
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
I believe their sports model was the S60R (or, in wagon form, V70R). Those things were cool. The new one looks nice, but probably no stick, huh? I think the S60 Polestar has a comparatively antiquated 6-speed auto, which is a bummer.
Click to expand...

Those ran to 06, maybe? In 2008 the V70 and XC70 picked up the S80's restyle, then they killed the V70 for some reason.

Then they finally came out with the new S60, and now this is based off of it...but it's basically still just the 'new' V70 from 2008. With extra dumbass random bodylines all over it because it's trendy.

The seats do look fuckin' awesome, though. And no, Mazda seats have nothing on Volvo seats. Mazda make firm, bolstered seats that are decent but plain. Volvo arguably makes seats better than any other carmaker that I can think of. Volvo comfort + huge bolsters = awesome.

This new 300hp version will probably suffer from the same thing that the R-cars did...a big fat ass. S60 T5's felt faster, despite lower ratings.
 
Yeah, Volvo feels like GM when I look at the numbers. How can you take 340 hp and return a 5.5 0-60 time? So slow...
 
Phanuel said:
Yeah, Volvo feels like GM when I look at the numbers. How can you take 340 hp and return a 5.5 0-60 time? So slow...
Click to expand...

Key formula: HP/weight

Volvo is a luxury brand, which means heavy electronics, insulation, and other unnecessary add-ons.
 
The AWD system really doesn't help. Just adds weight and parasitic loss. I was always told that's why the ~260hp FWD T5 was faster. I doubt that it really was, but it certainly did feel like it. They also had different manual transmissions (5spd in one, 6spd in the other). Not sure about the autos...didn't see many auto S60R's. Nor manual T5's; so it's hard to compare.

Also, Volvo's five cyls aren't torque monsters like BMW's sequential turbo I6. I dunno about the newer Volvo sixes. If they're still using the same turbos that they were a few years ago, it's a single fairly small 'twin scroll' (two divorced inlets for turbine housing) turbo. It doesn't really lag or anything, but you just don't feel the same power, especially on the low end, that seems to be there in a BMW motor with equivalent horsepower.

But he's right in saying that Volvo is a different market. They build their cars, with the occasional 'quick' version. It's not the same as the smaller BMW's, which, IMO, are all 'driver's cars,' even at the entry level.
 
Phanuel said:
Yeah, Volvo feels like GM when I look at the numbers. How can you take 340 hp and return a 5.5 0-60 time? So slow...
Click to expand...

1) A 5.5 second 0-60 is not "slow" by any rational measure.

2) Spool time. Typically the Volvos with high-pressure turbos have been very soft off the line, which plays havoc with the 60-foot time.

3) Gearing. When you gear a car taller for relaxed cruise, even in the lower gears, you sacrifice acceleration.

ZV
 
Zenmervolt said:
1) A 5.5 second 0-60 is not "slow" by any rational measure.
Click to expand...

It is when for example the next generation of the Audi S3 is a 300hp I4 and has a manf. est 0-62 of 4.9 seconds. That's 40 less HP and .6 seconds faster, while still being AWD.

2) Spool time. Typically the Volvos with high-pressure turbos have been very soft off the line, which plays havoc with the 60-foot time.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't understand what this means at all, and I'm not trying to be a dick here for once. Can someone explain?

3) Gearing. When you gear a car taller for relaxed cruise, even in the lower gears, you sacrifice acceleration.
Click to expand...

You don't really need to change low end gearing for "cruising", just your final drive.
 
High Pressure = larger turbo = more time to spool to boost = slower off the line. But, downshift and floor it at speed and it will pass at highway speeds like nobody's business. Smaller turbos are more responsive on the low end but taper off at high RPM.
 
Phanuel said:
You don't really need to change low end gearing for "cruising", just your final drive.
Click to expand...

Changing the final drive affects ALL gears, including the low gears.

And having shorter gearing in the lower gears (which is a function of the transmission, not the final drive) creates larger gaps between the higher gears, which can affect the feel of the car at higher speeds and have a substantial negative effect on fuel economy in medium speed driving (~45 - 55 mph) with an automatic because it will hunt and end up choosing the too-short lower gears, hurting fuel economy, because the taller "cruising" gears are too tall for medium-speed use.

The "sporty" Volvos have never been fire-breathing performance cars. They've always been more touring-oriented. The S3 (a significantly smaller car than V60), can afford to take a hit on fuel economy and have the engine at higher RPM in medium-speed cruising because it's not really supposed to be terribly refined.

ZV
 
I wish they would make something a little more fire breathing. I like the look of that V60 wagon a lot, but I'm just leaning so much more towards an S3.
 
I wonder if Geely is influencing Volvo designs, or if these are still being designed in Europe(?). It looks like Volvo's market share is still dropping. If Geely shifts more of Volvo manufacturing to China, I wonder if it will effect the brand's desirability in Europe or the US.
 
It absolutely would. To me this still looks like a Volvo design. But then again the head designer of Volvo now is head designer for Geely. Little reason to think that the designs would change drastically.
 
855R was my dream car while in high school (yea I was into volvo wagons in HS... first car was a 745 turbo... sue me).

The s60R and V70R were AWESOME to me at the time but I knew I could never afford one anytime soon... and then when I realized what a total piece of crap the XC70 I inherited was, I was back into the 850 and earlier volvo's and haven't really liked volvo's since 🙁
 
Phanuel said:
It is when for example the next generation of the Audi S3 is a 300hp I4 and has a manf. est 0-62 of 4.9 seconds. That's 40 less HP and .6 seconds faster, while still being AWD.



Sorry, I don't understand what this means at all, and I'm not trying to be a dick here for once. Can someone explain?



You don't really need to change low end gearing for "cruising", just your final drive.
Click to expand...


There's also a lot more that goes into a 0-60 time. 0-60 is pretty meaningless in general. There's a million things that affect 0-60, it's such a short stretch that it only verifies which car pulls harder at the start.

It's hard to say what's really going on until we get the full specs. All of the answers above are good insights.

I'd wait until we see a good quarter mile time before making judgement.
 
Eureka said:
There's also a lot more that goes into a 0-60 time. 0-60 is pretty meaningless in general. There's a million things that affect 0-60, it's such a short stretch that it only verifies which car pulls harder at the start.
Click to expand...

Yup.

And the 5-60 measurement is far more important in the real world. For example, the new F30 328i is faster than the old E90 328i in 0-60, but both cars have the same 5-60 time because of the F30's turbo lag.

The 0-60 time listed in magazines and by manufacturers typically involves the sort of launch that just isn't going to happen on the street. For example, the Porsche 951 is capable of low-5-second 0-60 times - if you're willing to hold the engine at 3,500 to 4,000 RPM and slip the piss out of the clutch to modulate the power and keep the engine on boost. It's not the sort of thing you want to do unless you have a lot of time and money to replace the clutch every few thousand miles.

Frankly, the 45-75 acceleration is much more useful to me on a day-to-day basis.

ZV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top