Used Car: Volvo S80 vs. Acura TL?

And to think that many Europeans like to call Americans arrogant,
interesting!

Not so many decades ago y'all also thought that fine photographic
equipment also only came from Europe. Ooops!


John

 

"Not so many decades ago y'all also thought that fine photographic
equipment also only came from Europe. Ooops! "

sure, and then...didn't a lot of good, cheap camera gear
come out of "occupied japan" for a while?

globalization has had a huge impact on mfg and
labor/design of products....the would is "smaller", in
those terms....

 

Last year my spouse and I purchased a '00 S80 2.9i and a '02 XC70
after being broadsided in our Nissan pick-up (our other vehicle was a
Mitsubishi Mirage). Both Volvo's had about 65, 000 miles when we got
them. Our Japanese vehicles were very reliable and inexpensive to
repair, but we wanted vehicles that made us feel secure and every piece
of research we found reinforced that.

After living with the S80 and XC70, we still love the way they drive
and their lack of pretentiousness, BUT, they are both much more
expensive to maintain than we expected. The S80 (which is supposed to
be less reliable than the 5-cylinder turbo engine cars) has been much
more dependable and has only needed front suspension work. The XC70 has
needed throttle-body management, Haldex (AWD), a gearlever replacement
and now transmission work.

We don't regret our decision, and love our Volvo's. We just wish
they were more dependable and less expensive to maintain.

 

yep, i agree...the cost is sometimes a bit steep, but i fig it is
an investment in persnl safety and comfort...the bmw's were
even more to work on and maintain....the volvos seem like a
nice, mid point..........

So, shifting gears....who here (on the volvo board) has
personally driven and/or owned a asian auto w/over 250,000
miles on it? how did it do?....thanx......

 

I bought a 95 854 T new, and have put 145k Km on it. I still like it.
In 1995, it was a much safer than average car, but the new Volvos are no
longer safety leaders. It isn't that Volvos have become less safe --
it's that other marques have caught up (and why not -- it isn't rocket
science to produce safe vehicles). New vehicles from Subaru, Audi and
Honda/Acura perform better in crash tests than new vehicles from Volvo,
ride and handles as well or better, and some of them are less expensive
to maintain.

The reasons why I bought a Volvo in 1995 no longer apply. My next car
won't be a Volvo.

Rick

 

Am Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:27:31 GMT schrieb John Horner:

Why arrogant? This is an oberservation. In Switzerland, the market with
the highest per capita income and no car industry the market shares are
as follows:

45 % Germany
25 % Japan and Korea
15 % French
<5 % Italy
ca. 5 % Sweden
< 2 % USA
Rest: Others

I'm currently in the USA and I drive a new rented Chevy Trailblazer.
This car is of such a lousy quality and confirms what I experienced in
the past. This car has such a low level of sophistication and is
guzzling gas at scaring rate. What the world really does not need
anymore are American gas guzzlers.

What I must admit ist that the Europeans and in particular the Germans
missed the development of hybrid cars. In that respect Toyota is
outstanding with their model range.

Ireally hope that the oi price once more doubles than we will see which
car industry will survive. Certainly not the American which is
technically bankrupt anyway, particularly GM.

Joerg

 

BZZZZT! Wrong answer! Other car companies can copy side airbags, but
they don't have SIPS. They can copy the Inflatable Curtain, but theirs
don't cover all three rows, or stay inflated during a roll-over. The
XC90's anti-rollover technology is still a world exclusive. In short,
advertising works, especially for those who would rather buy a
four-wheeled refrigerator than a car that might actually be fun to
drive, and still get you there alive. Ever wonder about why the IIHS
doesn't explain their testing properly? They claim their 'offset
testing' looks for passenger space intrusion, but it's really measuring
the amount of damage to the car -- more damage, lower ratings.
Remember, their first name is 'Insurance,' as in 'Insurance Industry.'
You know, those people who would rather have ultra-stiff structures that
transfer dangerous levels of transient forces directly into the
passengers' bodies (because you *know* soft-tissue damage is difficult
to prove) so they can save a few dollars per repair. That's why other
car companies get those 'fabulous' ratings from the IIHS. You'll have a
separated shoulder and a crushed pelvis, but hey, the car will come
through in great shape! Volvo has perfected the concept of crumple
zones and non-intrusive engineering, which ticks off the insurance
companies no end, because the car may be destroyed, but the passengers
will live to buy another Volvo. Go to Volvo's website and visit the
section titled, "A Volvo Saved My Life." Funny, I don't see anything
like that on Honda's website. It's easy to spell 'safety,' but a little
harder to actually make it work. Honda doesn't have Accident Response
teams that go out and investigate real-world collisions to make their
cars more crash-worthy. Soichiro Honda (of blessed memory) was an
engineer first, and his creations sometimes forgot the human factor
(their first set of Grand Prix cars were a perfect example --
extraordinary engineering, but a major handful to drive). One of
Volvo's founders had a nurse for a wife, and after hearing several
stories of horrific injuries suffered in auto accidents, declared that
the human factors would always come first. Primary in those factors are
safety and comfort. My '87 745 TGA has 'em in spades, even after
250,000 hard miles. So did the '94 850 Turbo we traded on the '01
V70XC. And allow me to share just how wonderfully all-day comfy the
seats are in my new XC90 V8. I've driven hundreds of different cars
over the years, but I've never found anything that combines the balance,
comfort, durability, and unique engineering of Volvos. For my money,
there are no better cars. Perfection has been attained, the rest is
just hype and noise. Enjoy your appliance car, fella. You deserve it.

 

Duke....some good info there...well, everyone knows asia is a "master"
at copying products..."it's what they do best".....

i can't articulate why exactaly, but volvo seems (to me), to be best
"bang for the buck"....i can tell when i work on them, size of bolts,
guage of steel, wire connectors...to name a few items....that's not to
say they don't have their ocassional problems...just as any boat,
plane, computer, etc....of all my "machines"...i use my car the
most....by far....

 

You didn't compare the recorded crash forces on test dummies in tested
cars.

Let's compare an Acura TSX with a Volvo S60 -- they're within 50 lb of
one another in weight.

In a frontal crash, the Acura protects the dummy better than the Volvo.

Acura TSX
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/3430.html
Curb Weight: 3305
Frontal Crash
Driver Passenger
5 stars 5 stars
Head Injury Criterion 268 214
Chest Deceleration (g's) 42 43
Femur Load l/r1 (lbs) 187/214 805/350

Volvo S60
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/3601.html
Curb Weight: 3355
Frontal Crash
Driver Passenger
4 stars 4 stars
Head Injury Criterion 502 399
Chest Deceleration (g's) 52 47
Femur Load l/r1 (lbs) 810/687 504/703

In a side crash, they're about the same.

Acura TSX
Side Crash
Front seat Rear seat
5 stars 5 stars
Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) 49 57
Pelvis Deceleration2 (g's) 67 73

Volvo S60
Side Crash
Front seat Rear seat
5 stars 4 stars
Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) 52 67
Pelvis Deceleration2 (g's) 64 57

Check it out for yourself. You'll see that the Volvos are still very
safe, but no safer than most competing cars.

Rick