My bro-in-law was tellinging that the BMW handles much better than the new T5. While I'm inclined to agree with him somewhat, I wonder just how much better in quantifiable terms.

Any one out there with some insight into how the term "handling" can be quantified?

Any one with other comparison data of the BMW 5 series wagon VS the 2001 T5 wagon?

Thanks,

Mike Jones

For the '01 V70T5, Car and Driver magazine observed 0.80 g around a 300 ft skidpad. They observed 0.81 g for the BMW 528i wagon.

0.01 g is such a small difference it isn't worth arguing about. As to which wagon would be quicker around a track, it would depend on the track and the driver's skill.

Yes, it's really not that much different when you look at the "quantitative" measures. I believe in 1995, C&D ranked 850 Turbo wagon top of the list (BMW & Audi are the other two compared). Even though they all said BMW handles better, but for emergency manuaver, you'll see Volvo beats all of them by some margin. (If you want the numbers, I can dig them up for you).

So, that makes me to think that maybe BMW gives you more false sense of security in handling.

Yes, the BMW wagon will handle better. It has a perfect 50/50 weight balance and is rear-wheel-drive. It is designed to be very sporty and fun to drive.

The BMW will also have less cargo room, be more expensive to operate (once it is past 36,000 miles - up to that point all services are free), and be more expensive to insure.

The 525iT and 530iT will be slower than a turbo wagen, but the 540iT with it's 282 hp V8 will be faster (and over $50,000).

If you want handling, get the BMW. If you want utility, get the Volvo. The Volvo will have more options and a newer chassis. The BMW will edge the Volvo in safety (both very highly ranked), but the Volvo wins in price.

Personal preference.

I compared the BMW to the Volvo and found:

The 3 series is in the same price range as the V70. The 5 series was in another ballpark. Of course, with overseas delivery, I was able to get my 2001 V70 T-5 for around $32,000. See what that will get you at your local BMW dealer. Of course, to some people price is not an issue.

I must also say that I like a relatively fast car and most BMWs are not what I call fast. I do not even feel like I need to add any speed modifications to my T-5, yet. I must also say that the BMW's did seem to handle a little better than the Volvo. The BMW brakes had excellent feel.

We all know that rear wheel drive cars tend to handle better. But remember that is on a dry road. I will take a front wheel drive car over rear wheel drive car on ice, snow or in rain. I consider front wheel drive to be safety equipment that just happens to allow me to drive fast in snow.

At this point, I am still happy with the T-5. It is sooooooooooo hard to drive the speed limit. I love the smell of a high pressure turbo in the morning.

2001 V70 T-5, White, No Sunroof, Taupe Cloth, Geartronic

How can you say that the BMW is safer than the Volvo? The 5-series has not been tested, recently (according to NHTSA data) whereas the V70 although it has not been tested yet if we take the results from the S80 tests (since the V70 shares the same chassis, door panels, safety systems), you will see that the S80 has received FIVE stars all the way around: Frontal ratings (driver and passenger side) and side (front seat and rear seat)...

I doubt that the BMW is "safer".

Yannis

The 5-series was one of the best ever tested in the offset 40 mph crash test. The Volvo has yet to be tested. Five stars is good, but not as impressive these days as many cars are scoring that high.

"NOt impressive"???? What is impressive? TEN stars? Sorry, they do not have those, at least not YET! So, if it is not impressive, then the BMW rating is not impressive.

Without a doubt, the BMW 5-series is a very safe automobile but not superior to the S80. At least, the S80's headrests scored "GOOD" whereas the BMW's headrests were "ACCEPTABLE" and that rating did not get accomplished until MY1999. Before that, they were either "ACCEPTABLE" or "MARGINAL". As a matter of fact, most of the other BMW models' headrests are anywhere from "POOR" to "ACCEPTABLE", at best. Only the 1999Z3 Coupe scored "GOOD". On the other hand, you cannot find ANY Volvo model (going WAAAAAAYYYYYY back, that its headrests did not score anything but "GOOD".

Yes, BMWs are not bad but would I rather be in a BMW or Volvo when the MACK truck rear ends my ass? You bet your....well, ahem, ASS, that I would rather take my chances in a Volvo....make that an 850 too, for "old times" sake!

Yannis

Very funny!! But I'm with you on all counts. Volvo does not literally translate to "rolling strength" for nothing. Here near I-85 in SC, getting rear-ended by a semi could actually happen

Please, post data, then maybe you can say that the BMW is safer. For now, I consider the Volvo to be safer because of the data I've seen about the S80, especially in regards to the fact that it is the only car in the world to score at top spots in three seperate crash tests, using different crash and test measures. So, for right now I consider your bias full of BS...prove me wrong. or don't.

You appear to have taken this personally. However, I'm up for the challenge.

Give me a couple days. I'll prove the 5-series is safer than the V70 (and maybe even the S80)...

Regards....

Hey,

why take a few days when, after a few hours I can provide you with what you are looking for:

For the crash tests go to:

www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/00007_2001.html (for the S80)

www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/96029.htm (for the 5-series)

As far as the headrest results, go to:

www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/head_restraints/head_volvo.htm

www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/head_restraints/head_bmw.htm

Have fun!

Yannis

In a nutshell, these cars are not considered in the same class by the IIHS or NHTSA. The BMW weighs about 3,800 lbs. while the S80 comes in at about 3,550. This puts them in different classes, not in the same league. Both advisory boards consider it a comparision of apples and oranges to look at side-by-side data.

In truth, both did very well. Both cars got excellent marks in all categories. The dummy in the Volvo did impact the B-pillar, but not with serious injuries. The BMW dummy did not make any hard contacts.

The HIC, Femur, Knee displacement, Tibia, Axial, and Acceleration scores are almost identical. Where Volvo is tops in some areas, BMW takes others (BMW protects your right leg better, while Volvo watches out for your knees).

In any case, I'd consider it a tie. In reality, the extra weight of the BMW would come out on top in a real-life car-on-car accident, but the low weight of the Volvo makes it better in a solid barrier impact (less inertia).

So... it's a draw.

The original question was V70 vs. 525iT. The V70 has never been crashed publically (US Gov't or IIHS test).

I agree that on a full frontal test (which is bang into a concrete wall), you can't compare cars from different weight class. However, I believe the side-impact is conducted by using the same dummy car. So, no matter how heavy is your car, you're hit by the same, say 3000 lbs, car and the result can indeed be compared.

For offset frontal test, it may be also be compared as the car is being crashed into some collapsible aluminum honey-comb (as how I remember it). The heavier the car, the more "damage" is done to the dummy "car" and should theoretically less damage to the tested car. So, the weight is already factored in more or less. (hey, no test is perfect)

A 1995 C&D test of (1) Audi A6 Quattro wagon ($40,265), (2) BMW 525i Touring ($46,201), (3) Volvo 850 Turbo wagon ($39,423), here are some of the results (Volvo came up the first):

(1) Audi (2) BMW (3) Volvo

0-60mph 10.1 8.8 7.2

braking

70mph-0 186 ft 167 ft 169 ft

roadholding

300-ft

skidpad (g) 0.74 0.78 0.78

emergency

lane-change

maneuver,mph 58.5 59.7 61.6

So, quantitatively Volvo handles a little better than BMW (except in braking). Subjectively is up to the driver and whether or not it has the BMW embrem.

The comparison you are looking at is from 1995. The BMW from that year was an E34 chassis, first introduced in 1989 (with just one airbag). The current 5-series, an E39 chassis, was introduced in 1997. The car has up to eight available airbags, plus many more safety features (explosive battery cap that removes power to the entire car, interlocking doors, etc...).

That car (1995 E34 525iT) was also considerably underpowered compared to today. Today, the 5-series is available with three engines, two of them inline-6's. The top engine is a 282 HP V8.

A front-wheel-drive car will do better in the emergency lane-change maneuver, especially when there is an inexperienced driver behind the wheel. The understeer makes the handling predictable, and recoverable, for the vast majority of drivers.

My experience also shows me that front-wheel-drive turbos tend to spin their tires on the track, while the rear-wheel-drive BMW's can put the power to the pavement (it's all about weight transfer).

I'm still going to maintain that the Volvo and BMW have the same safety ratings, while the edge on handling goes to the BMW.

You bought a Volvo wagon, so did I... for my wife. My wife drives it because it is safe and predictable.

Not sure whether I can believe this, but the HDLI-IIHS has the S80 (under "4-doors") with an injury incidence of .65 (65% of average), while the 5-series (under "luxury") has one of .71 (71%).

ie. "real world" data seems to show that the Volvo design is safer. Obviously, this is complicated by the personality chartacteristics of the two car's drivers.

They also have the old-style V70s at .53 and .54 for the FWD and AWD versions.

It is nearly impossible to compare safety ratings.

For years, the Volkwagen Bus (yes, the van) was one of the safest cars (for deaths per million miles) on the road. The Corvette was one of the most dangerous. Does this mean I'd rather travel in a VW Bus than a Vette? Never. It shows us that the average VW Bus driver is slow and careful while your Corvette drivers are out there carving canyons.

I'd argue that the BMW drivers are a bit faster than the Volvo drivers. This is evident in your other numbers, showing the "old style" V70's as even safer. I bet the 240's are really low! Modern Volvo drivers (driving the newer cars) are generally younger and more likely to have an incident (this is the crowd Volvo is attempting to draw), and this probably explains these "higher" numbers.

In any case, I'd rather be in a Volvo or BMW than in any other car on the road in terms of safety (and that is why I own one of each).

It is nice that we find ourselves debating over which car is the safest, many years ago, most manufacturers didn't even care about occupant safety!

Amen.

Amen, again.