Since the first "R" cars were in the 850 series, I think this is the appropriate section. Anyways, i was on the ultimatecarpage.com site and it seems that some people think a volvo can never compete or rate with a MB or BMW or Audi performance car. I beg to differ(not because I love/own an 850) since most of their arguement is based on the cost of the car and a few more HP/torque or features. It seems a $40+K volvo can never hold it's own with a $50-60K M3/C36/S6. My only rebuttal is, I rarely consider $$$ when comparing cars: Class, drive-train, WEIGHT, engine type(plus torque curve), etc. matters. Those fools, er folks, probably never see/watch european/japanese racing to witness Opels, Vauxhalls(the first car I drove), Nissan(did I say Skyline!) etc. beating BMW and Audis and Volvos all the time.
I think the problem is a combination of things: alot of car-buffs are brain-washed by the car-rags/ads. they read over here(US); We(USA), for the most part, equate Expensive with BETTER. Those other cars are great cars, but I would BET a small fortune they are not way-better than an S60R. And based on some prelim. reviews, I think the volvo is faster to 60mph. Plus with a chip and exos. and intake AND if it's LIGHTER- the competition would be seeing my rear lights! For folks who really know about cars, which do you think is the best of this bunch- STOCK? I say a tie between the S60R and S6!!!!!!!!!!!

The Audi and the Mercedes are *as far as I know* unavailable with manual transmissions, the BMW and Volvo do/will have 6-speeds at least.

So just on that basis, I'd exclude the Audi and the Mercedes.

Sadly, little stealth value in any of these sedans, I seem to pass a lot of BMWs cruising along at exactly the speed limit.

For $50-$60k, I'd choose a Boxster S.

-Punxsutawney Phil

Instead of the Boxster, why not consider the S2000? Or 350Z? (None of the caché but all of the panáche.)
--
David \\ (98 S70 T5SE Black, misc mods (mostly lighting), red calipers) (92 940GLE)

Before the couch quarter backs lecture their expertise, perhaps they need to drive the new R and really see.

Wills
--
98 R AWD Wagon IPD ECU, 2.5 Dual Exhaust, Dawes MBC, 94 854 turbo, IPD Goodies, 92 740 Rag Wag

I don't think the issue is whether it's faster or better handling. (God help us all if it's only faster!) The issue is....what the hell are they thinking in Gothenburg? Why doesn't Volvo go ahead and make a true sports car? They're just piddlin' around if all they're doing is piling on more power and adding bigger suspension to an existing all-around platform. Sheesh, it's still packaged in the S60's dowdy skin! I think they'd find many new customers by building a sport platform and building up to a sport sedan version....kind of like the Nissan Z-car, with the infinit G35 option a little further up-market. Nissan has a Z-car. BMW is building another generation Z-car. So why not an edgy, sizzlin' Volvo Z50R?
--
David \\ (98 S70 T5SE Black, misc mods (mostly lighting), red calipers) (92 940GLE)

Each of these cars fills a different niche, and for many, the S60R will be an exciting car indeed....and these are probably people who might never otherwise buy one of the others.

The S60 will probably do pretty well as a fast street machine, but Volvo handling has never been such that it runs with other European touring cars. The jury is out on whether this one will close the gap; only time will tell. We'll know it's for real when we turn on Speedvision some Saturday afternoon and see this car able to run on the same track as the Nissans, Porsches, Audis, BMWs, Saleens, et al.

Ultimately, what I see is the Volvo brand people thrashing about trying to figure out who their customer is (and it's pretty clear from their sales curve they've completely lost contact with their market). So they've produced another compromise, a kind of C70 on steroids. One can only hope that the S60R is a transitional car on the way to a sporty vehicle we'll really want. My personal message to the morons at Volvo: get your nose out of last year's focus group results and give us a truly sporty vehicle. A two seater maybe, RWD probably for the 2 wheel drive option. A car where the money goes into handling and fun, instead of over-engineered, whizbang technical trinkets. Call it a Z50 or something. Look at all the S2000's, MR2's, Z3/4's, SC430's, 350Z's, SLK230's and their ilk coming out. There's a message here. (But alas, endless repackaging of an existing automotive product is....uh...well...the American way!)
--
David \\ (98 S70 T5SE Black, misc mods (mostly lighting), red calipers) (92 940GLE)

There is a lot of difference between the Volvo and its german competitors. First of all, I think we can both agree that all of them are fine cars; but since they are different cars they have different makers. Anyone who has every driven one, knows that a BMW drives like no other car on this earth, they have a perfect balance between ride and handling of any car on the road. Mercedes used to excel in building sturdy luxury cars known for their solidity and longtivity, however they have now traded that to build cars that have more panache and drive like BMWs. Audi is a value priced german competitor, while not as refined as the Bimmer or the Benz they offer an excellent high-quality package at a more resonable price than their German cousins. Volvo is not really in the BMW, Mercedes, and Audi market niche; Volvo specializes in building safe, well built, practical (upscale not luxury) automobiles and they don't focus on the ride or handling as much as the others; but Volvos cost much less compared to Bimmers, Benzes, and Audis of similar size. However, Volvo has always given its customers a nice blend of performance, value, and of course safety for the money, and I don't see much of a point in comparing apples to oranges.

I believe Motortrend (or some other major car magazine) actually did a comparison between the S60 (non-R version) and the A6. They actually picked the A6 as a better all-around car (including performance-wise) to my surprise. I just graduated from a high school last year where alot of the kids I knew drove cars in the class you mentioned, so I had the opportunity to actually test my parents' S70 GLT against some of these cars during the year, and I came to alot of the same conclusions you did. The S70, since it was the only one in the school, soon got the reputation of being much faster than expected.

One of my friend's parents own a CLK430, M3, and an SL500 AMG so I had the opportunity to "performance test" the S70 against these, as well as drive them. Straightup acceleration-wise (all the cars are bone stock), the CLK seemed only slightly faster, but the SL and M3 were significantly faster (granted all these cars are stick and the Volvo is an auto). Where these other cars definitely excel performance-wise is their handling and braking ability. I found myself able to take corners significantly faster in even the CLK.


Granted I only was able to compare these cars with an S70. The S60R, following Volvo's R-sport tradition is supposed to be the most technologically advanced Volvo to date. Based on the huge performance differences between the 850 GLT and the 850R, I wouldn't be surprised to see S60Rs outperforming some of the cars you listed.
--
1990 244DL - K&N, airbox mod, 2 15' JLs, Brickstylz body kit, underbody neon (2.5' straight pipe exhaust system, performace cam to come!!!) all at 255K+ miles. 1998 S70 GLT - mom and dad's car. If only....