Ok, How About An XC-70?

[Seth Jackson]

You know I was looking at the V-50's when my dealer said he has two
2004 XC-70's that are new and he'll knock about $8,000 off of the
sticker.
These are nice rides. What would I expect as far as gas mileage and
realiability on this model year? He also has a nice 2004 V-70 with the
turbo that is marked down
What do you think?

All I can tell you is that we just bought a new 2004 V-70 2.5T and we
love it.

- Seth Jackson

Songwriting & Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net

 

[Stephen M. Henning]

You'd be a good person to ask, then - with auto tires, is the pressure
(let's call it about 30 psi) high enough to liquify the surface of ice the
way I'm told ice skates do? My guess is "no" except possibly very near the
melting point anyway.

The pressure you are referring to is the internal pressure of the tire.
The external pressure is very different since the surface is not smooth
and the tire contains the internal pressure. For example, when the car
is up on jacks, the internal pressure is the same but the ground
pressure is zero.

I think you assumption about very near the melting point is reasonable.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to [email protected]
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html

 

[Guest]

Go for V70 for space & if you never want to go offroad. If you want the odd
excursion offroad, XC70 is a better bet, but this ability compromises it's
onroad performance. V50 is cheaper & smaller & is best option if you want a
road car but don't need V70 space. Incidentally, T5 is quicker than 2.5T &
engine is more robust. Still, a turbo is better than no turbo. Test drive
them all, MUWAHAHAHA!

Andy P

Thanks again for the advice. I feel like I am in the United Nations
and engaging in Peace Talks with my dealer. They won't budge a whole
lot and I can't get screwed on my trade in. So, I talked to my
friendly Honda dealer tonight who will deal on a loaded 2005 Pilot. I
know, it's not a Volvo. But, don't you have to shop for a dealer as
well as a car? The ratings on the Honda are tops.
Maybe I do need to sit up high after all. Maybe it's my mid-life
crisis??? I'll keep you posted, but my Volvo dealer told me that "we
don't really have to haggle on Volvos, they sell themselves at the
sticker price." So, other than the '04's they have, the others are
sold at sticker!
Whew....thanks for listening!
--Fred

 

[Stephen M. Henning]

I feel like I am in the United Nations
and engaging in Peace Talks with my dealer.

My experience is that if I want a fair price for my used car, I must
sell it privately. I always ask half-way between wholesale and retail
and calculated by edmunds.com and kelley.com. This makes the playing
field flat and I know exactly what discounts dealers are giving me. I
actually choose my dealer by their service department rather than their
sales department. Even though my Volvos have been very reliable, when I
go in for service, I don't want to have to worry about it. My previous
dealer had service writers that listened to your description of a
problem and then guessed what they would have the mechanics do. It
seldom worked. My present dealer has mechanics that have a good
knowledge of the car and allows them to use their knowledge. It is a
big difference.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to [email protected]
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html

 

[Stewart Hargrave]

The pressure you are referring to is the internal pressure of the tire.
The external pressure is very different since the surface is not smooth
and the tire contains the internal pressure. For example, when the car
is up on jacks, the internal pressure is the same but the ground
pressure is zero.

From a physicist, I find that a puzzling answer.

The pressure inside the tyre is constrained by tension in the carcass
of the tyre. If the tyre is on the ground with a load on it (the car),
the tyre deforms until a state of equilibrium is reached. This point
is when the force acting from the ground upon the tyre equals the
force required the deform the tyre.

Clearly, if there was no pressure in the tyre, the only force
resisting collapse is that due to the strength of the sidewall. As the
tyre is flexible, this is not enough. The additional force due to the
air pressure inside the tyre stops the rim touching the ground.

Thus force exerted upon ground = pressure within tyre + force required
to deform sidewall.

If the tyre was rigid, then the strength in the sidewall alone would
be able to withstand loads without deforming. But it ain't, so it
doesn't.

As a side point, it is interesting to find (well it interested me,
anyway) that the pressure inside the tyre stays pretty much the same
regardless of whether there is a single person in the car, or 5 people
plus luggage. This is because the contained volume within the tyre
stays pretty much the same. What does change is the size of the
contact patch.

I once carried out the following experiment:
Put a piece of graph paper on a set of bathroom scales. Jack the car
up, and coat part of the under side of the tyre tread with some
printing ink. Lower the tyre onto the scales and record the reading.
Remove graph paper and count the squares within the contact patch.
Repeat for various loads and pressures.

Within the limits of the experiment (I didn't test to the point of
destruction), the results will show that the size of the contact patch
changes with the load, and in inversely with the pressure. The
pressure inside the tyre hardly changes at all in relation to the
load. Conclusion: the overall load on the ground increases as the load
increases, but as the tyre deforms, the contact patch increases in
size, and the force per unit area stays the same.

I think you assumption about very near the melting point is reasonable.

Don't know much about skates, but if the blade has a contact area of,
say, 1/8" x 12", then a pair of skates supporting someone of 120 lbs
will be exerting a force of 40 psi on the ice. From the above, this
would seem similar to the unit force of a typical tyre upon the
ground. But I imagine there would be other factors invloved in
liquifying the ice, like its temperature, for example.

--

Stewart Hargrave


For email, replace 'SpamOnlyToHere' with my name

 

[J.A.N.]

hehehe....looks like you've hit a nerve amongst the Volvo hard core nerds !

 

[Stephen M. Henning]

From a physicist, I find that a puzzling answer ...
Thus force exerted upon ground = pressure within tyre + force required
to deform sidewall.

Force does not equal pressure. Force equals pressure times area.

The area is the area of the tire in contact with the ground. This is a
gray area since peripheral area is not completely flat. Hence the true
area is somewhere between the actual area and zero. The area also
depends upon the tread. Some treads have a large area in contact with
the ground and some treat just have isolated knobs that contact the
ground.

The pressure you are referring to is the internal pressure of the tire.
The external pressure is very different since the surface is not smooth
and the tire contains the internal pressure.

To visualize this. Consider a piece of a tire that is 1 inch square.
Place a 20 lb piece of lead on it. The pressure that it transfers to
the ground could be almost anything over 20 psi. If the tread area is
50%, then the pressure is 40 psi. If the tire has steel studs and one
1/8" square stud is supporting the 20 lb piece of tire, the pressure
could rise to 1280 psi.

 

[rob]

We purchased a 2004 XC-70 in July. The mileage computer has not been reset
since purchase and shows about 21.4 mpg average since new. This is with a
lot of small town driving with occasional (once-a-month) 150-160 mile drives
to go shopping (Montana...). Averaging about 1,000 miles per month at the
moment. Reliability has been good, but then it's new, it better be...

 

[Stewart Hargrave]

Force does not equal pressure. Force equals pressure times area.

Indeed, there is the contact patch to include in that calculation. I
wasn't intending to present an specific equation, rather than a summay
of factors involved.

To visualize this. Consider a piece of a tire that is 1 inch square.
Place a 20 lb piece of lead on it. The pressure that it transfers to
the ground could be almost anything over 20 psi. If the tread area is
50%, then the pressure is 40 psi. If the tire has steel studs and one
1/8" square stud is supporting the 20 lb piece of tire, the pressure
could rise to 1280 psi.

Well, I sort of see you point, but now find myself confused.

You see it was explained to me something like this: The tyre carcass
is under tension as a result of the air pressure inside. When you
lower the tyre onto the ground, at the point of contact, the tension
is opposed by the upward force of the ground. As things are in
equilibrium, the force of the ground upon the tyre must equal the
tension in the tyre carcass - the force pushing the tyre in equals the
force pushing it out. Plus a bit for the mechanical strength of the
tyre.

It all made sense to me then.

Further, it was put to me, and demonstrated rather convicingly, that
if you put more load on the tyre in the form of extra weight in the
car, the contact patch will expand, meaning the force per square inch
will remain the same.

Now I figure from your comments, that if the tyre was to perch on the
top of a vertical rod of, say, 1 foot long and 1 sq inch section, then
the contact patch could not possible expand beyond 1 sq inch.

So now I'm confounded. I intuitively grasp the first explanation, but
now it seems lacking.

Damn.
--

Stewart Hargrave


For email, replace 'SpamOnlyToHere' with my name

 

[Bengt]

| On 5 Nov 2004 17:44:23 -0800, [email protected] (Spambow) wrote:
|
| >You know I was looking at the V-50's when my dealer said he has two
| >2004 XC-70's that are new and he'll knock about $8,000 off of the
| >sticker.
| >These are nice rides. What would I expect as far as gas mileage and
| >realiability on this model year? He also has a nice 2004 V-70 with the
| >turbo that is marked down
| >What do you think?
|
| All I can tell you is that we just bought a new 2004 V-70 2.5T and we
| love it.
|
| - Seth Jackson
|
| Songwriting & Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net

Ditto. Have had an XC70 since July, my 6th Volvo. It is by far the best car
I've ever owned. The only quibble is getting 16 mpg in the city. That's
offset somewhat by the 28+ mpg I get on the highway at 65-75 mph. Other than
that, I can find nothing I would change or wish I had on the car.