 | |
Volvo long-term reliability
Volvo automobiles Volvo automobiles. (alt.autos.volvo)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Volvo long-term reliability -
04-23-2009
, 03:07 PM
|
i like 'em both...they each have their place in driving and rallying......in the end though...i think i would rather be "pushed" than "pulled"...... On Apr 21, 11:34*am, James Sweet <jamesswe... (AT) trashmail (DOT) net> wrote: Stephen Henning wrote: Tony <Nos... (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote: I'd generally agree with this, although I can say that the RWD cars are much more robust than the newer ones. *The newers ones are also alot cheaper than the older ones and designed for a more mass market fashion rather than long life time. *For instance most of the big RWD cars were galvanised, the FWD ones are not, any 940s with no crash damage still looks like it came out of the showroom. *FWD is more susceptible to CV joint problems. *Newer ones are more efficient, prettier and have more gadgets. Actually the opposite is true. *The 850 unibody design is made with galvanized steel. *This is also part of the improved safety in the newer FWD Volvos, the better galvanizing insures that the body maintains its strength. The most rusted out vehicle I ever owned was a 1971 Volvo and it had less than 100,000 miles on it. *The rocker panels had to be replaced before I could sell it. *My '93 850 with 150,000 miles, '95 850 with 150,000 miles and '01 V70XC with 120,000 miles are all rust free and look like new inside and out. * None have ever had CV joint problems. *I can guarantee you the FWD Volvos never have rear end problems. *Kidding aside, Volvo went from RWD to FWD for safety reasons. *RWD cars are cheap to make, but they sacrifice strength and handling, and wrap the gas tank around the rear axle. Volvo started galvanizing in 1986 with the 240 series, I don't know if the early 700 series were galvanized or not. The FWD/RWD debate has raged on for decades with no clear winner. FWD is simpler and less expensive to manufacture, the entire power unit is installed as a single package. It also has significantly lower parasitic drag since there are fewer moving parts. RWD requires a separate rear axle assembly, driveshaft, multiple mounts, etc. The fuel tank is not wrapped around the axle, in the 240 it is behind the axle and in the 700/900 cars it is forward of the axle. Both FWD and RWD Volvos have excellent safety records, I've never heard of a fuel tank rupture occurring. Handling is different, but again, I see no clear winner, either one can be "better" depending on the circumstances. Personally I prefer RWD, but mostly due to the easier maintenance and repair of a longitudinally mounted engine than any handling merits of one over the other. I've done enough work on transverse engines in FWD cars to know it isn't something I enjoy.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#12
| |||
| |||
|
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
Personally I prefer RWD, but mostly due to the easier maintenance and repair of a longitudinally mounted engine than any handling merits of one over the other. I've done enough work on transverse engines in FWD cars to know it isn't something I enjoy. |
infamous "Road to Hanna". It is a coastal road, about 50 miles long,
with 600 curves and 54 bridges and absolutely gorgeous. It is said to
take you closer to heaven than any other road and they aren't kidding.
We started the journey at dawn and have breakfast in Hana so that other
traffic wouldn't be in our way. It was great to have a car where you
could step on the gas when the rear end started to slide. That was
probably the most fun I have had in a car.
Recently on a rain-slickened road, my XC70's rear started to slide on a
curve. I stepped on the gas in it and pulled it out of the slide. I
wasn't sure what was going to happen. It felt great. That is something
you could never do in the RWDs.
I did have a Subaru before the FWD and AWD Volvo's came out and it had
scary-wicked torque steer. It had so much torque steer that you had to
really muscle the steering wheel when you passed someone. I realize how
great the Volvo FWDs and AWDs that I have owned are. They were totally
neutral.
--
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://rhodyman.net/homevo.html
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
Ok so we've determined that the old cars that we know last well do, in fact, last well. With the exception of an '01 XC70 I'm not seeing too much input regarding cars sold since the turn of the century. The XC70 is only an option if its provenance is above suspicion (i.e. if owned from new). Minor maintenance issues can develop into big headaches with this car so I'm not considering it. To veer back toward the OP, does anyone have experience with, say, an S40 with high kms? You can take really good care of a Toyota Camry but when it hits 235K you're on borrowed time. Not so for a 240 or a 960 or an 850. What about an S40? Does it carry on Volvo's tradition of durability? Thanks, blurp On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:57:56 -0700 (PDT), "~^ beancounter ~^" richbonilla (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: i like 'em both...they each have their place in driving and rallying......in the end though...i think i would rather be "pushed" than "pulled"...... On Apr 21, 11:34 am, James Sweet <jamesswe... (AT) trashmail (DOT) net> wrote: Stephen Henning wrote: Tony <Nos... (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote: I'd generally agree with this, although I can say that the RWD cars are much more robust than the newer ones. The newers ones are also alot cheaper than the older ones and designed for a more mass market fashion rather than long life time. For instance most of the big RWD cars were galvanised, the FWD ones are not, any 940s with no crash damage still looks like it came out of the showroom. FWD is more susceptible to CV joint problems. Newer ones are more efficient, prettier and have more gadgets. Actually the opposite is true. The 850 unibody design is made with galvanized steel. This is also part of the improved safety in the newer FWD Volvos, the better galvanizing insures that the body maintains its strength. The most rusted out vehicle I ever owned was a 1971 Volvo and it had less than 100,000 miles on it. The rocker panels had to be replaced before I could sell it. My '93 850 with 150,000 miles, '95 850 with 150,000 miles and '01 V70XC with 120,000 miles are all rust free and look like new inside and out. None have ever had CV joint problems. I can guarantee you the FWD Volvos never have rear end problems. Kidding aside, Volvo went from RWD to FWD for safety reasons. RWD cars are cheap to make, but they sacrifice strength and handling, and wrap the gas tank around the rear axle. Volvo started galvanizing in 1986 with the 240 series, I don't know if the early 700 series were galvanized or not. The FWD/RWD debate has raged on for decades with no clear winner. FWD is simpler and less expensive to manufacture, the entire power unit is installed as a single package. It also has significantly lower parasitic drag since there are fewer moving parts. RWD requires a separate rear axle assembly, driveshaft, multiple mounts, etc. The fuel tank is not wrapped around the axle, in the 240 it is behind the axle and in the 700/900 cars it is forward of the axle. Both FWD and RWD Volvos have excellent safety records, I've never heard of a fuel tank rupture occurring. Handling is different, but again, I see no clear winner, either one can be "better" depending on the circumstances. Personally I prefer RWD, but mostly due to the easier maintenance and repair of a longitudinally mounted engine than any handling merits of one over the other. I've done enough work on transverse engines in FWD cars to know it isn't something I enjoy.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
My 2000 US spec. S40 that I purchased new in Nov. of 1999 just turned 197,000 miles (317,000km) last week. The body and suspension are starting to get a little worn out, but the engine and trans. are still in very good shape. It leaks oil like an old Volvo, but for the amount of money that I've put into it (which has been very little other than for wear items), it has been a good car. "blurp" <boogenhaagen (AT) austinpark (DOT) com> wrote in message news:sge1v4t29s1o8jtdk3nv88q6mbdvhfkavh (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... Ok so we've determined that the old cars that we know last well do, in fact, last well. With the exception of an '01 XC70 I'm not seeing too much input regarding cars sold since the turn of the century. The XC70 is only an option if its provenance is above suspicion (i.e. if owned from new). Minor maintenance issues can develop into big headaches with this car so I'm not considering it. To veer back toward the OP, does anyone have experience with, say, an S40 with high kms? You can take really good care of a Toyota Camry but when it hits 235K you're on borrowed time. Not so for a 240 or a 960 or an 850. What about an S40? Does it carry on Volvo's tradition of durability? Thanks, blurp On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:57:56 -0700 (PDT), "~^ beancounter ~^" richbonilla (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: i like 'em both...they each have their place in driving and rallying......in the end though...i think i would rather be "pushed" than "pulled"...... On Apr 21, 11:34 am, James Sweet <jamesswe... (AT) trashmail (DOT) net> wrote: Stephen Henning wrote: Tony <Nos... (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote: I'd generally agree with this, although I can say that the RWD cars are much more robust than the newer ones. The newers ones are also alot cheaper than the older ones and designed for a more mass market fashion rather than long life time. For instance most of the big RWD cars were galvanised, the FWD ones are not, any 940s with no crash damage still looks like it came out of the showroom. FWD is more susceptible to CV joint problems. Newer ones are more efficient, prettier and have more gadgets. Actually the opposite is true. The 850 unibody design is made with galvanized steel. This is also part of the improved safety in the newer FWD Volvos, the better galvanizing insures that the body maintains its strength. The most rusted out vehicle I ever owned was a 1971 Volvo and it had less than 100,000 miles on it. The rocker panels had to be replaced before I could sell it. My '93 850 with 150,000 miles, '95 850 with 150,000 miles and '01 V70XC with 120,000 miles are all rust free and look like new inside and out. None have ever had CV joint problems. I can guarantee you the FWD Volvos never have rear end problems. Kidding aside, Volvo went from RWD to FWD for safety reasons. RWD cars are cheap to make, but they sacrifice strength and handling, and wrap the gas tank around the rear axle. Volvo started galvanizing in 1986 with the 240 series, I don't know if the early 700 series were galvanized or not. The FWD/RWD debate has raged on for decades with no clear winner. FWD is simpler and less expensive to manufacture, the entire power unit is installed as a single package. It also has significantly lower parasitic drag since there are fewer moving parts. RWD requires a separate rear axle assembly, driveshaft, multiple mounts, etc. The fuel tank is not wrapped around the axle, in the 240 it is behind the axle and in the 700/900 cars it is forward of the axle. Both FWD and RWD Volvos have excellent safety records, I've never heard of a fuel tank rupture occurring. Handling is different, but again, I see no clear winner, either one can be "better" depending on the circumstances. Personally I prefer RWD, but mostly due to the easier maintenance and repair of a longitudinally mounted engine than any handling merits of one over the other. I've done enough work on transverse engines in FWD cars to know it isn't something I enjoy.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.