SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So our 2007 s40 T5 AWD is simply not big enough for the new baby, the dog and all our / their stuff. I love the s40, don't get me wrong, just need something a bit bigger. The s40 is going to my mom, who's passat just died.

Right now, leasing the xc70 seems to be pretty attractive. I have a choice of premium, climate, tech, and convenience packages with blis and booster seats, with a 3.2 OR premium, climate, convenience, blis sirius with a T6. I do a lot of upstate driving and the bi-xenon's are really interesting to me. The lease payments, are in the mid $500s because of the incentives and loyalty, the capitalized cost of the car is about $35,000. Taxes, fees and 1st month payment upfront. Seems like a good deal to be able to drive a sticker priced $47,000 car for mid fives 15k, 36 month lease.

Would you go for the T6 without tech or the 3.2 with tech all other things
being equal? I test drove both and found the 3.2 perfectly fine.

Forgot to mention the special safe and sound super warranty they are offering until June 30th too so my maintenance costs would be zero.

Oh and the 3.2 has the HD radio and USB interface i'd like to use with my 3g iPhone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,340 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (pshifrin)

I would not consider the 3.2, but that's my opinion having driven both over several hundred miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,476 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (Needsdecaf)

On a contrary, I would consider 3.2, driving non-turbo n/a Volvo 6-cyl (3.2 and previous 2.9) for almost 200K miles combined (15K - 3.2 in a sig + almost 170K on 00 S80 2.9)

235HP will serve you just fine http://********************/smile/emthup.gif
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,795 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (pshifrin)

Quote, originally posted by pshifrin »

Would you go for the T6 without tech or the 3.2 with tech all other things
being equal? I test drove both and found the 3.2 perfectly fine.

You get two different responses from Needs and Gascos because both drive different Volvos on a regular basis. Needs drives a Turbo and Gascos drives a S80 with a 3.2. Their answers reflect this difference.

Having been here a while, I can tell you that the guys with Turbo Volvo experience seem to like the T6 MUCH BETTER. No offense to my buddy Gascos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,476 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (V70 Brad)

Quote, originally posted by V70 Brad »


You get two different responses from Needs and Gascos because both drive different Volvos on a regular basis. Needs drives a Turbo and Gascos drives a S80 with a 3.2. Their answers reflect this difference.

Having been here a while, I can tell you that the guys with Turbo Volvo experience seem to like the T6 MUCH BETTER. No offense to my buddy Gascos.

I question the part in bold, as I doubt that anyone can more thoroughly enjoy their cars than I do
. No offense to my buddy Brad,

That is why the best way is to test drive both engines and draw a personal conclusion.

I post for a simple reason to prevent the requestor from any sense of guilt stating that there are people out there enjoying their less powerful, but adequate engines...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (pshifrin)

I haven't driven the T6, but I spent some time behind the wheel of my mother's XC70 3.2 last visit and while I feel the 3.2 was plenty adequate, I really missed the "yellow rubber band of God". You'll be happy with either-the XC70's a real nice vehicle-but coming from an S40 T5 you'll be happier, more satisfied with the turbo.

I'm sure you've given consideration to a used P2 wagon? I salivate at the prices they're going for these days. I firmly believe they're the best wagons yet made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (exizldelfuego)

Thanks everyone for their help so far. Real world gas milage questions. On my s40 the turbo eats gas for breakfast and my city numbers are sometimes worse than the 15 rates for the 3.2. Highway I was able to squeak out 30.0 on a recent 200 mile trip in upstate ny by staying 5 over the speed limit. I know the t6 vs 3.2 has a 1mpg difference on the highway but does the lack of turbo actually make it even better real-world?

For the cars that the dealer has access to, the t6 has climate, conv and premium with sirius while the 3.2 has all that plus the tech package, both in the color i want. Coming from the upgraded stereo in the s40, how's the base stereo in the xc70?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,340 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (gascos80)

Quote, originally posted by gascos80 »


235HP will serve you just fine http://********************/smile/emthup.gif

How can you tell that? That is your personal subjective opinion which you cannot assign to another.

Quote, originally posted by gascos80 »


I post for a simple reason to prevent the requestor from any sense of guilt stating that there are people out there enjoying their less powerful, but adequate engines...

I am not trying to guilt anyone into anything. I am not a HP freak, I simply have my opinion. For instance, I'd rather drive our old 2001 S40 with the 1.9t engine that had about 165 HP than the V70 or XC70 with the 3.2.

And it's not necessarily about the turbo, either. I thought that my 2002 Pathfinder with it's N/A 3.5L V6 was more pleasurable to drive engine wise than the 3.2L engine.

And strangely enough, for some reason it really bothers me more in the XC/V 70 than it does than even in the XC90!!! I just do NOT like the pairing of the 3.2 in the wagon body. Never driven an S80 3.2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (pshifrin)

Hey pshifrin. I recently moved to an 09 XC70 T6 from a 05 V50 T5 (and for the same reasons you moved) so I know a little about the switch.

The XC70, irrespective of engine selection, is a different class of car. It's more of a grownup car. It's large, it's not nimble, it's difficult to know where the corners of the car are, it's comfortable, and it's excellent at hauling people, other creatures, and the stuff which accompanies them.

The T6 is a nice move from the T5. I tried both the 3.2 and the T6 several times; I wouldn't have bought the 3.2. It's a fine enough ride, I just agree with others that it isn't an ideal pairing with a car this large. But only you can make that decision.

I got my XC70 more or less loaded. The bending headlights are definitely among the best lighting systems I've used in a car, period (I have driven a lot of european cars, as I travel to Europe often for work), but by no means are they necessary. And the Dynaudio system is similarly one of the best systems I've heard in a car--very well balanced throughout the frequency range and clear as can be. Again though, not a necessity, and the stock system is as good as the "premium" systems in other makes (not kidding here). I had the premium audio in the V50 and think the stock XC70 system is almost as good, though a lot of that is because the XC70 interior is much quieter.

Can't say on comparisons for gas mileage, as I only test drove the 3.2 a couple of times. The T6 is a hog, but it's getting better with time, and I knew what it was going into it. It'll be my last gas car. I did get about 28mpg on a recent 2 hour roadtrip, but it plummets to 18 as soon as any stop and go is involved. And yeah, I'm a speed limit +5 sort of guy.

It's up to you whether you think the T6 or the tech package is more important to you. Drive to the dealer in your S40, drive the T6, and then drive the 3.2. That'll tell you all you need to know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (pshifrin)

Quote, originally posted by pshifrin »
Thanks everyone for their help so far. Real world gas milage questions. On my s40 the turbo eats gas for breakfast and my city numbers are sometimes worse than the 15 rates for the 3.2. Highway I was able to squeak out 30.0 on a recent 200 mile trip in upstate ny by staying 5 over the speed limit. I know the t6 vs 3.2 has a 1mpg difference on the highway but does the lack of turbo actually make it even better real-world?


You've probably seen my various posts on mileage (if not, search for them). After 5000 miles and resetting the MPG after every 1000 miles, we've consistently gotten what I consider to be a poor 13 MPG, mainly with my wife driving. It's officially rated at 15 MPG.

On paper, the T6 gets the same mileage as the 3.2, so it was a no brainer for me to go for the extra power, if one can afford a few extra thousand $.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (Lotus99)

With the leasing numbers, it's actually a few dollars less per month to lease the T6 with Premium, Climate, Convenience, and Sirius vs a 3.2 with Premium, Climate, Convenience and Tech due to the higher residuals on the T6.

I've made my decision to go with the T6, thanks everyone for their input. I was really looking forward to getting a car with integrated nav but it's just not worth $50 extra per month the lease would cost with it. The nav lowers the residual for some reason and also increases the cost. My Garmin that I have in the s40 does the job just fine.

Do you guys think the car is "worth" $570 a month for 36 months? Seems like a lot of car for that price. (Only money down is tax, title, license, first month).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
39,289 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (pshifrin)

Quote, originally posted by pshifrin »
With the leasing numbers, it's actually a few dollars less per month to lease the T6 with Premium, Climate, Convenience, and Sirius vs a 3.2 with Premium, Climate, Convenience and Tech due to the higher residuals on the T6.

Exactly. If you are leasing, it is a no brainer; go with the T6. For only about $19/mo. more you get the engine + Convenience vs. the 3.2 version.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
39,289 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (etherfarm)

Quote, originally posted by etherfarm »
Drive to the dealer in your S40, drive the T6, and then drive the 3.2. That'll tell you all you need to know.

The proper sequence would be to drive the "slower" engine first and then the more powerful one...But it is a moot point now as he has already decided.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (GrecianVolvo)

I did drive the 3.2 first, it was obvious which one was better. The T6 "felt" much like my s40 in terms of acceleration and responsiveness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (pshifrin)

Congrats on the new car, pshifrin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,340 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (pshifrin)

Quote, originally posted by pshifrin »
With the leasing numbers, it's actually a few dollars less per month to lease the T6 with Premium, Climate, Convenience, and Sirius vs a 3.2 with Premium, Climate, Convenience and Tech due to the higher residuals on the T6.

I've made my decision to go with the T6, thanks everyone for their input. I was really looking forward to getting a car with integrated nav but it's just not worth $50 extra per month the lease would cost with it. The nav lowers the residual for some reason and also increases the cost. My Garmin that I have in the s40 does the job just fine.

Do you guys think the car is "worth" $570 a month for 36 months? Seems like a lot of car for that price. (Only money down is tax, title, license, first month).

I would not have let the integrated Nav swing the decision too hard. I am very upset that Volvo decided to change their menu options so that many are not available while in motion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,216 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (Needsdecaf)

Quote, originally posted by Needsdecaf »


I would not have let the integrated Nav swing the decision too hard. I am very upset that Volvo decided to change their menu options so that many are not available while in motion.

Volvo is just following voluntary industry guidelines. All other mfr. systems I've seen in the past year do the same, Toyota/Lexis, GM, Audi, etc.. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Volvo's controller is conveniently and safely located on the steering wheel and the screen pops up into the line of sight, so any distraction from driving and glancing away from the road is minimal. On the other hand, changing anything on the iPod requires using the controller positioned low on the console while looking at a screen that is positioned low on the console. Yet there is full iPod functionality while in motion.

There are a couple of workarounds on the nav system that I use. First, the ability to scroll to a point on the map and set it as a destination is available while the car is in motion. Second, searching for points of interest around the car and along the route is available while the car is in motion.

I was intially upset with Volvo's deactivation while the car is in motion, but it is not too bad given how I use the system.

1. To use it to get a new place (restaurant, event, friend's house). This is where I would normally input the address on the fly, but I have to spend a few extra seconds in the driveway. I hate this, but its only a few seconds.

2. To use it to get to home or office from an unfamiliar location. Home and office are saved locations that load quickly while heading out the garage or parking lot. Once I get onto familiar highways, I just shut the system down. Deactivation is not an issue.

3. To get ETA and distance to destination. When I'm running late, this is very helpful. I usually set destination for this info on the fly using the two work arounds above. Deactivation is not an issue

4. To get POI info. Restaurant phone numbers to call the restaurant for take out or to hold a reservation are available while in motion. And the nav system and bluetooth work together, so when I get the restaurant's info, the BT will dial it for me. Finding nearest gas station, etc. Deactivation is not an issue.

My biggest pet pieve is the inability to change the shortest/fastest route on the fly when I hit bad traffic on LA freeways. You can tell the system to avoid certain highways on the fly, but the alternate routes it comes up with are minimally different from the original route. I used to switch the shortest/fastest route setting on the fly as a means of getting an alternate route, but the settings menu is deactivated on the fly. And like everyone else, I wish the Volvo software showed more street names.

Even with it's shortcomings, the factory system is still preferable to the spider web of cords needed for the puny-screened after market systems. It is illegal to mount aftermarket navs (or anything for that matter) on the windshield in California. Plus the windshield mount position put those touchscreens way out of reach. The aftermarket dash board mounts usually block AC vents or some other important thing. And the aftermarket units don't mute the radio when giving directions.

I don't believe that factory nav lowers the residual. When I sold my V50, various colored appraisal books, websites and used car appraisors all agreed that the factory nav added value.

$50/month more on the lease seems awfully high for factory nav. http://********************/smile/emthdown.gif That equals $1800 over the course of the lease; you want to lease the thing not buy it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,205 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (pshifrin)

Quote, originally posted by pshifrin »

Do you guys think the car is "worth" $570 a month for 36 months? Seems like a lot of car for that price. (Only money down is tax, title, license, first month).

Is the Volvo allowance of $5,250 applied to leasing?

After those 3 years, your total payments will be $20,520. What's the residual on yours?

To compare, mine was an 08 XC70 3.2AWD, $460 per month, 24 months (started July 2008) for Premium Climate Convenience PCC BLIS ABL and Sargas. I believe my residual is around $31,000, but looking at how much these sell at the dealer right now ($25,000 ish) I'm not too sure anymore on what to do next year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,340 Posts
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (BarentsBlueV50)

My Acura is a 2007 and de-activates no features, nor do the '09's.

The Audi Q5 I drove this spring didn't either.

I had a Nissan Pathfinder with Nav that greyed out and hated it. Drove me nuts. POI input was not an on the move option.

The Nav in our cars gets used most on the fly, and most often with a front passenger. My wife is perfectly capable of operating the Nav while I am driving.

Just one of my pet peeves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Re: Thinking about an xc70 (pshifrin)

I got the car! Don't shoot me but I got a 3.2 because of the packages and features available and the "hope" of better gas mileage.

Here's my report after having the car for almost 24 hours.

Engine: Totally fine. Yes, it's not a sports car. I did baby it the first day and even passed someone on a country road.

Gas: As i said above, I was very easy on the gas, never went more than 5 over on the highway and got (according to the computer) 28mpg on the highway. 60-70 mph. When i got off the highway, i had 30 miles of hills, winding roads and the avg dropped to 24.something. Considering the car isn't broken in at all, very good numbers.

Handling: I work for a company that owns summer camps and had to drive from home (suburban) to one (rural) yesterday, a 120 mile trip. So i really got a complete mix of what this car can do. On our property I was able to test the car on gravel and use hill discent control (very neat).

Bi-Xenons: Drove 2 miles on an unlit back country road late last night. Amazing, the road is lit up like nothing i've ever seen. For this type of driving, a must!

HD Radio: HD is neat but breaks up easily.

USB interface: With my iPhone 3G and 3.0 software, works as advertised once i figured out how to access the play lists from the radio interface. Oh and it DOES change the phone which some other posters were unsure about. However, every time it plugs in the phone says something like "this accessory is not made to work with the iphone do you want to turn on airplane mode to reduce audio interference." I simply say no and it works. However, when it is plugged in, you cannot access the ipod app on the iphone, you can only use the car interface to control it.

DynAudio: Sounds awesome although I'm not an audio expert.

Seats: Even more comfortable than the S40.

Bluetooth: Works perfectly with the iphone.

Parking Assist: Very useful and accurate.

BLIS: Very useful, mostly accurate, just a few false positives (mostly in the back country) but didn't seem to really take into account huge trucks, mostly just cars.

Nav: I have a Garmin Nuvi 660 which I mounted using a Proclip, will upload a picture of that later. It works well, has text to speech, I can use it while car is in motion, and even created a custom volvo splash screen. No need for the expensive and very hard to find factory nav.

Overall, very, very pleased and quite the upgrade from the s40 and much more practical for baby + dog + camp. Color is Electric Silver Metallic with Black Interior.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top