Maybe I missed it but any thoughts on the new V70? Looked at one briefly the other day in the showroom. I like it. The base engine is an in-line 6 putting out 268hp I think. Should give sufficient power and torque without the fuss of a turbo. Interior layout seemed nice. Prognosis anyone?

Bill

I just came back from the Washington Auto Show in DC, where I spent considerable time in the new '08 V70. Here now is my assessment:


1) It's gorgeous! I love the sleek lines and the interior is awesome.

2) The sound system is out of this world. I have to admit, I found myself jamming to a Hannah Montana tune inside the car with hundreds of people watching!

3) This V70 has to be the best car Volvo ever made. Hands-down. I was recommending it to every person who came near the vehicle.

4) I'm getting one without fail when I get the cash.

Thanks. I'll take that as a thumbs up. :-)

Any predictions on reliability?

Bill

Reliability- well, it is a first-year model so I can't hold my breath here.

But I do think it will prove to be as reliable as our beloved bricks of years past. And when examining the car close-up at the show (i.e. opening and slamming the doors), I truly believed that it is much better-built than 70% of the crap at the convention center.

This car has some serious potential. Really.

The redesigned cabin is very nice. The 3.2L engine, while powerful, is a large step backward in fuel economy.

Klaus
--
The 164 has a new home, all I am left with are a 95 854T and a 98 V70R :)

Define large step backward. My 745 2.3 litre 4 cyl 16 v stick averaged 24 USmpg over the last 6 years - including winter driving mostly in town. By way of contrast, my 3.0 litre V6 Taurus wagon averages maybe 19-20 USmpg (not too sure since I don't track that car closely). Our 2000 Chev Impala with a 3.2 V6 does a bit better than the Taurus, perhaps because it is a sedan but worse than the 745. It is hard for a 6 cyl to beat a 4 or 5 cyl on a level playing ground.

Can the new V70 be that much worse? The Volvo US site says 16-24 mpg and the weight of the car is about the same as the Taurus. So while that is nothing to write home about, it is in the range of what I would expect. Nothing has recently changed in gasoline combustion chamber design to lead to significantly better efficiency. Modern engines are well metered and otherwise well controlled so for a given weight and power demand, the die is cast. Volvo does not use regenerative breaking, electrically driven 43V water pumps or whatever so no gains there. Wish they has a diesel here in NA.

I am all for hybrids and such as long as the total life cycle cost and environmental impact looks good but I'd just as soon have a simple, long lasting, safe and reliable car. Seems to me that is the best balance of personal, societal and environmental costs and benefits. Safety standards are up on most modern cars. Mechanical reliably is up on most modern cars. Pollution control is up on most modern cars. So long life and reliability seems to be the distinguishing features.

So, getting back to my original question, how do you think the new V70 will fare in what I think is the weak point of the new fangled FWD Volvos: the multiplexed electrical instrumentation and control systems. That is where the Japanese makers win out over most other cars these days. Has Volvo learned yet? Too early to tell from actual data but maybe someone knows enough about the redesign to speculate.

Bill

While my 247bhp R gets 21 around town and 28mpg on the highway, I had only seen the new XC70 at the dealer. The window sticker was 15/22mpg, the new V70 says 16/24mpg. Neither of which impressed me as being particularily frugal.

The 3.2 NA engine may be nice, but it will have to be proven to last by someone other than me. Unless Volvo adopts Chrysler's unlimited warranty for power train.

--
The 164 has a new home, all I am left with are a 95 854T and a 98 V70R :)

What are they actually getting?
I read an article in the NYT on the s80, they reported excellent MPG's for the 6?
Just curious.
Thanks
Dr. Chip

HP on the six is 235.

The interior design, IMO, is great. The floating dash I had seen on test drives of the smaller models, and I didn't like it. However, I DO like it in the V70. The styling is VERY nice. I wasn't prepared to shell out for a new car, so I bought a 2005 V70. The kicker for me was I like the 5 cylinder engine, and the fact is gets a bit better fuel economy than the 2008. IMO, Americans are their own worst enemies. Why are fuel economies going *down* in this day and age? END OF RANT.

Your main question regards the 6 cylinder, and I can't comment much on that. I concur with you that the lack of a turbo, and getting 268 hp is a very attractive alternative. They must have pulled the engine from an existing platform, no? Maybe someone has info on that.

Awesome looking car. I rode 20 miles in one, and it was very comfortable.

Why oh why would they change perfection from the proven design of the inline five!!!!???? That motor with the turbo is perfect, I thought the 4cyl with the turbo was perfect until I bought a 98 v70.

Car companies always do this, ford changed its diesel truck engines twice in the last 5 years with each having its own different set of problems, I drive the proven truck with the proven 7.3 turbo motor and I guess it will be the same with volvo, I will keep driving old cars and trucks until like Klaus says someone else with have to take the plunge and make the new motors "proven".

Even the master tech at our volvo dealership said to "keep driving the 98, best car volvo ever made".

i like the design, the only thing I really do not like in the new volvos is to the fact that the speedometer is ONLY in km/h or mph.. something which can be irritating in particular for people who constantly hop between the US and Canada. and if i recall my visit to the dealer a few weeks ago, only the new v70's, S 80's have this speedometer set up..

as for the MPG's, keep i mind that the fuel economy labels were changed last year... i believe on the label it still said up to 25- 33mpg on the highway.