volvo safety

[redman]

Hello all,

I am closing in on buying a 2004 XC70.

When looking for a car, safety was the most important factor for me -- my last car (a 1997 Jeep Cherokee Sport) was totalled in an accident that I was lucky to walk away from. I also work at a major trauma center and see people brought in from horrific accidents -- it has heavily influenced my choice of vehicles.

That said, I was confident in Volvo's safety after reviewing much of the information out there (even though the XC70 itself hasn't been tested in all of the most prominent tests).

Surprisingly, this forum has posted a fair amount of information to the contrary -- by self-proclaimed Volvo-lovers!

A state trooper I know is on the scene at many accidents and drives a Volvo because he sees the difference in the injuries to Volvo drivers vs. others.

My auto insurance agent drives a Volvo.

A young trauma surgeon I know at Baltimore's Shock Trauma says the next car he will buy for his family will be a Volvo.

A nurse in the ER where I work has taken an informal poll of motor vehicle accident patients (those who patients who are well enough to reply) re: what they were driving -- she says Volvo is one of the best.

Does anyone feel there is a particular make/model out there that is far superior safety-wise?

I welcome any input re: Volvo's (XC70) safety (or relative lack thereof).

Thanks!

[Quietlymknnoise]

My 04 save my life. The whole under carriage was ripped out. We post our probelms here because we want others to know what to expect. No automobile is perfect. We just want you know that when the time comes to all of us. We are in a Volvo and will be back to post again.

[Big]

Does anyone feel there is a particular make/model out there that is far superior safety-wise?

I welcome any input re: Volvo's (XC70) safety (or relative lack thereof). Interesting post and quite an endorsement. The XC70 is an excellent choice for the safety-conscious, both for surviving crashes and avoiding them. About the only knock on current Volvos is that DSTC (Dynamic Stability and Traction Control) is an option and hard to find. The XC90 is superior in some respects: an even stronger roof, DSTC standard, and taller and heavier to better match the big vehicles out there. And if you need to carry 6-7 people, the XC90 is safer. Of course, that size can be a disadvantage in some single-vehicle crashes.

Volvo also gets criticized for not always getting the top score in every crash test. As of 2006 some brands may have caught up with Volvo although it could be argued that Volvo pays more attention to the details including injuries to those outside the car. You would be hard pressed to find anything better overall.

[1Lieutenant]

I drive a Volvo for utility comfort and SAFETY. The limitation of crash testing is that it can only test certain parameters so it will be reproducible. Volvo, along with Mercedes and Saab, are the only companies that I know that actually send accident investigators to crashes to evaluate real world situations. They have been doing this for decades.

Steve

[redman]

Thanks for your replies.

I just wanted to clarify w/ regard to my initial post:

My intention was not to endorse Volvo w/ regard to safety. Rather, I'm trying to find holes in my argument for buying a Volvo for it's safety (if there are any) BEFORE I buy.

I included some of the testimonials I had in order to show how I came to decide upon a Volvo.

It is what I've read in this forum that has caused me to question that confidence in Volvo's safety.

When I asked if there are any makes/models that are far superior, I meant far superior to Volvo!

The few responses I've gotten indicate no, I won't find any better for safety. Anyone out there who feels otherwise?
(By the way, I still welcome any comments supporting Volvo as best choice for safety... I posted this b/c this forum left me confused on the issue)...

Thanks again!

[RedXC]

All Volvo models will be safe!

superior safety in the European market will be BMW and Mercedes Benz.

[Big]

It is what I've read in this forum that has caused me to question that confidence in Volvo's safety. What in this forum has shaken your confidence?

There's an interesting account of a crash at Swedespeed (http://forums.swedespeed.com/zerothread?id=56231) where a couple came away convinced of Volvo safety.

[carl]

Thanks for your replies.
I just wanted to clarify w/ regard to my initial post
redman,
I believe that your question is clear and I do not think that you have to be concerned about specific posts. As others have mentioned, most of the active members are Volvo XC fans and many are realistic about the cars too. For the most part you are going to get good honest answers to any question.
I bought my XC for it's safety, design, carrying capacity, seats, etc. and I haven't been disappointed. BUT, any one experience or answer having to do with a general question will not necessarily apply to other cars, other situations, and other drivers. If you are concerned about safety, I would suggest looking at various government tests, insurance institute tests, and periodicals like Consumer Reports for a answer based on more tests and experiences. I think that Volvo's results are still good.
Good luck,
Carl

[redman]

To answer Big's question:

I'd done a lot of research re: crash tests (government and independent), Consumer Reports and other reports. Volvo has performed well (especially their heavier models).

I only recently came across this forum and read several threads re: Volvo resting on its laurels safety-wise. These same threads made reference to other companies meeting and surpassing Volvo's safety, that Volvo hadn't been keeping up to date safety-wise, and that it wasn't performing as well in crash tests.

As I mentioned, I'm deciding on a Volvo largely b/c of safety (although many features appeal to me). Hence the shaken confidence.

That said, I understand that isolated comments & experiences often do not apply broadly.

Hence my post here -- just wanted some feedback. If there is a better choice safety wise, I'd like to know now, not after I've bought a car that I'll probably keep for at least 3-4 years - if not many more... (this is a very big/expensive purchase for me).

Thank you to everyone who has shared/will share their thoughts [happy]

(btw, I read the account on Swedespeed -- impressive endorsement for Volvo overall. I'd also consider buying an XC90 but it's too much for my budget.)

[John@CdnRockies]

Redman, you can mark me down as a contrarian when it comes to Volvo safety. Without a doubt, the car has a wonderful safety pedigree but I think it tends to be living off its past reputation. Rarely is Volvo at the top of any independent safety analysis - surely they can't all be wrong? Reality is that other models have greatly improved their capabilities in this area and now surpass Volvo.

While I think the XC70 is a fine car and has good safety, it is now "middle of the pack". Hate to admit it but my wife's Mercedes way outperforms the Volvo in this area (better handling, standard DSTC etc.).

I recognize there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence of survivors and I'm glad for them. I've survived two high-speed write-offs without a problem as well (Turbo Mustang, Toyota Celica). That said, independent safety statistics are the only true consistent measures available to discerning buyers - and they don't favour our selection.

John

[BillAileo]

In my opinion, Volvo continues to do a fine job on safety. However, at least two factors may be contributing to a lessening of its image in that area:

(1) Many other cars are doing a good job addressing safety matters so differences are often now much less pronounced;
(2) Designing a car to do great on particular tests may or may not result in a car that has the best overall safety design for real life events.

Bill

[d2gxc]

Redman (and others): In support of BillAileo's 2nd point, you may be interested in the following paragraphs from an article published by NBC4 last April. (Since I'm not up on all the latest independently performed, and government required tests, it's possible the original 30-year old test HAS been improved, but I don't think so):

"Why don't car makers build stronger roofs? The federal government doesn't require them to. That story will be told in Part 2 of our investigation. We'll also tell you about some cars with roofs that are more "crush resistant" and might protect you in an accident.

Finally, General Motors and Ford both refused NBC4's request for interviews. In e-mails, they both said "their cars all meet or exceed the federal roof strength standard." GM also wrote, "there is no meaningful relationship between roof strength and the likelihood of serious or fatal injury ..."

Ford wrote to NBC4, saying "simply strengthening the roof will not affect the outcome of the crash."

The trade group for car makers told NBC4 it's unclear whether roof crush causes injuries. They're continuing to study it."

Some of us may remember Volvo's 1971 ads showing the 7 stacked cars. Others may recall the recent picture of the tanker truck falling on a V70 and the driver eventually getting out with barely a scratch.

The above is a huge reason my wife and I bought our XC (although I have to admit that, if you are on the shorter side, the massive A-Pillar which contributes to the roof's strength does create a bit of a blind spot when turning left...)

[pep]

I lost all faith in the safety of my car and Volvos committment to safety when my 01 left me stranded along the side of a highway 1000 miles from home. Volvo made a choice in the 99-01 models of our car to place an ill designed electronic throttle module in them. Internal documents have shown that they knew that these ETMs would fail at around 90% before 100,000 miles. An ETM failure can cause the car to stall or surge suddenly. It can also leave people stranded or limping along at 20 miles an hour. If this happens on a busy highway and you happen to have your two children or elderly parent in the car, you are a sitting duck. The warranty extension on this part is a joke. Volvo is simply replacing the part with the same failing part and refusing to let dealers and owners know what the computer upgrade is supposed to do to make the car safer. (This is my experience with the software upgrade). I bought my car to drive my small children in. I am considering getting rid of it because of the SAFETY issuing relating to the ETM. Yes, I might survive being run over by a semi on the highway when the ETM fails but I should never be put in that place to begin with. I do not trust Volvo in the safety department anymore. I will NEVER buy another volvo because they knowingly put an unsafe car on the road. For more information about the ETM, the NHTSA investigation, and the class action lawsuits in California see vexedvolvo.org.

[Big]

I only recently came across this forum and read several threads re: Volvo resting on its laurels safety-wise. These same threads made reference to other companies meeting and surpassing Volvo's safety, that Volvo hadn't been keeping up to date safety-wise, and that it wasn't performing as well in crash tests.

As I mentioned, I'm deciding on a Volvo largely b/c of safety (although many features appeal to me). Hence the shaken confidence. Based on my selective memory ;) I recall discussions about Volvo not being at the top of the class according to some lists but no serious posts about Volvo slacking off on safety. Cars in general are a lot safer these days--as they should be--and some of that is attributed to Volvo showing the way. They continue to develop active and passive safety features in new models. The current top models from other manufacturers have come a long way and may be as good in most respects, but Volvo appears to pay more attention to the details and has the history to back that up.

Now, about those test results. There's been lots of discussion about this in several forums, and the talk includes owners who are experienced in engineering tests and statistics. What I come away with is that the tests (IIHS, NHTSA, NCAP, etc.) are very specific, done only once, in some cases not well thought out, and not representative of the complexity of real crashes. The tests provide a data point for a basic comparison of different cars but it is presumptuous to conclude that one car is "safer" unless the differences are large. Volvo is always near the top which is what we expect. From what I can gather, Volvo does much more comprehensive research, lab and track tests, and real-world crash analysis than any of the outside testing agencies. Plus, Volvo understands that there is much more to car safety than safe crashing.

Consumer Reports and other organizations do not conduct their own crash tests but rate safety based on the published tests and other sources like insurance claims that are riddled with uncontrolled variables. They have to make assumptions about what factors are most important and how to present the findings to the average consumer. The list they come up with is useful for only general comparisons and cannot be taken too literally. Safety is not easily reduced to a simple rating.

As an aside about roof strength since it was mentioned in another post, I'll include photos of a crash last week in Portland, Oregon taken from the KATU News helicopter. A car--not a Volvo although I draw no conclusions from that--ran a stop sign at high speed and had the misfortune of hitting an asphalt truck which tipped over on them. Two passengers were trapped in the car with hot tar spilling on them and were severely burned. Everyone survived.

http://www.katu.com/news/images/story2006/060330asphalt_ax3_422.jpg

http://www.katu.com/news/images/story2006/060330asphalt_ax1_422.jpg

[littlewaywelt]

I had the opportunity to drive my father in law's 06 bwm 750 not too long ago. It had many safety features missing in Volvo, most notably standard electronic stability and airbags for the lower legs. Imo, any premium type car is bound to be safe and have good survivability, bmw, mercedes, saab. Even Hundai offers cars with 8 standard airbags now. Volvo, while certainly safe no longer has any exclusivity to it. I do think that it's one of the safest cars for the money.

Anecdotal evidence from trauma rooms, pos/leos, medics, firemen, etc only goes so far. I put much more weight in IIHS/NHTSA type methodical testing where factors are common. Like most people causing delays on highways, I am very often guilty of rubbernecking at accidents. It seems to me that the passenger compartments seem to hold up very well in most makes now, even in seemingly substantial crashes. Additionally, there could be a myriad of other reasons why people walk away from Volvo wrecks other than the "Volvo safety factor."

I know we've discussed the difficulty of finding DSTC on volvos and volvo's responsibility in that issue many times here, but when it comes to safety Subaru has an outstanding point when they stress how their technology (permanent 50-50 awd in that case) helps avoid accidents in the first place. Many car makes include Electronic Stability standard. On Volvo it's incredibly difficult to find a car with it, and that is troubling for a company that touts its dedication to safety. The recent stats showing a reduction (50% if memory serves) in fatalities in single car accidents equipped with ES were not surprising; that Volvo doesn't put it in every single car they manufacture is.

[Big]

I had the opportunity to drive my father in law's 06 bwm 750 not too long ago. It had many safety features missing in Volvo, most notably standard electronic stability and airbags for the lower legs. Imo, any premium type car is bound to be safe and have good survivability, bmw, mercedes, saab. Even Hundai offers cars with 8 standard airbags now. Volvo, while certainly safe no longer has any exclusivity to it. I do think that it's one of the safest cars for the money. Of course, the BMW 750 costs twice as much as the XC70, so expensive in fact that it does not appear to have been crashed by the testing organizations! So, yes, it may have a few things that Volvo lacks (I agree that DSTC should be standard). However, some other current BMW models get a Poor rating for rear protection by the IIHS (Volvo is Good, the best IIHS rating, for all models). Overall ratings for current BMW models are similar to Volvo, but if you look back before 2001 BMW rated merely acceptable or poor whereas Volvo was still good or excellent. Same thing with Mercedes, Saab and the premium Japanese brands. Across the board Volvo still distinguishes itself.


...when it comes to safety Subaru has an outstanding point when they stress how their technology (permanent 50-50 awd in that case) helps avoid accidents in the first place. Is the Subaru AWD system superior to Volvo's? That's another discussion but, speaking of anecdotes, the only crash we have witnessed in recent years was a Subaru going off a mountain road in front of us. We stopped hard and turned our Volvo around without incident on a very slippery road to help. The driver lost a lot of blood but was Ok. I'll take Volvo in emergency handling but that's just me.

[littlewaywelt]

Of course, the BMW 750 costs twice as much as the XC70, so expensive in fact that it does not appear to have been crashed by the testing organizations! So, yes, it may have a few things that Volvo lacks (I agree that DSTC should be standard). However, some other current BMW models get a Poor rating for rear protection by the IIHS (Volvo is Good, the best IIHS rating, for all models). Overall ratings for current BMW models are similar to Volvo, but if you look back before 2001 BMW rated merely acceptable or poor whereas Volvo was still good or excellent. Same thing with Mercedes, Saab and the premium Japanese brands. Across the board Volvo still distinguishes itself.

Is the Subaru AWD system superior to Volvo's? That's another discussion but, speaking of anecdotes, the only crash we have witnessed in recent years was a Subaru going off a mountain road in front of us. We stopped hard and turned our Volvo around without incident on a very slippery road to help. The driver lost a lot of blood but was Ok. I'll take Volvo in emergency handling but that's just me.

I agree that the 750 to xc70 isn't apples to apples. My point was that Volvo is neither the leader nor the exclusive provider of/in safety innovation and contrary to what they'd like everyone to believe, imo it's not as high on their list as they'd like us to think it is. Cars in same makes can do very differently whether it's a 330 - 750, 9-3 - 9-5 or v40 - xc70. Volvo's "innovations" seem very average to me. The only thing that I've seen recently that I found truly impressive was the side curtain in the new c70 that extends up.

I wasn't speaking to suby's awd, but rather to their point of using technology to prevent an accident. Volvo clearly could be doing this, but they aren't. DSTC, or the lacktherof, is the perfect example. My brother and mother-in-law both drive subarus. I too would much rather be in a Volvo in an emergency than in a suby. As to awd capability, I believe the suby system is far superior to volvo's vc system. I haven't spent enough time in the haldex system to make that comparison yet, but based on one ski season I'd still say subarus are superior in the snow to volvos. I'm just used to jeeps (18 years) and think a car that's powering all the wheels tends to do better in the snow.

[Big]

Volvo's "innovations" seem very average to me. The only thing that I've seen recently that I found truly impressive was the side curtain in the new c70 that extends up. From the UK's Volvo Owners Club, a list of all important safety features introduced during the history of Volvo Cars:

1944 - Safety cage
1944 - Laminated windscreen

1954 - Defroster vents for windscreen
1956 - Windscreen washers
1957 - Anchor points for 2–point safety belts front
1958 - Anchor points for 2–point safety belts rear
1959 - 3–point front safety belts standard

1960 - Padded instrument panel
1964 - Disc brakes front
1964 - First rearward–facing child safety seat prototype tested
1966 - Rear windscreen defroster
1966 - Disc brakes all around
1966 - Dual split triangular braking system
1966 - Crumple zones front and rear
1966 - Safety door–locks
1967 - Safety belt rear seats
1968 - Head restraints front
1969 - Inertia reel safety belts
1969 - Heated rear windscreen

1971 - Reminder safety belt
1972 - 3–point safety belts – rear
1972 - Rearward–facing child safety seat
1972 - Childproof locks on rear doors
1972 - Warning lights (hazard)
1973 - Side collision protection
1973 - Collapsible steering wheel
1974 - Energy absorbing bumpers
1974 - Safe location of fuel tank
1974 - Multistage impact absorbing steering column
1974 - Bulb integrity sensor
1974 - Headlight wiper/washer
1975 - Day running lamps
1975 - Braking system with stepped bore master cylinder
1978 - Child safety booster cushion

1982 - "Anti–submarining" protection
1982 - Fog lamps front
1982 - Fog lamps rear
1982 - Warning lights in opened door
1982 - Wide angle rear view mirror
1984 - ABS anti–locking brakes
1985 - ETC – Electronic Traction Control
1986 - Brake lights in rear window
1986 - Three–point safety belt centre rear seat
1987 - Mechanical safety belt pre–tensioner
1987 - Airbag – driver

1990 - Integrated child safety cushion in centre rear seat
1991 - SIPS – Side Impact Protection System
1991 - Automatic height adjusting safety belt
1992 - Reinforced rear seats in estate models
1992 - Passenger airbag front
1993 - Three–point inertia–reel safety belts – all rear positions
1994 - SIPS–bag, side airbag
1995 - DSA – Dynamic Stability Assistance
1995 - Integrated child safety cushion outer rear seats
1997 - ROPS – Roll Over Protection System (C70)
1998 - WHIPS – Whiplash Protection System
1998 - IC – Inflatable Curtain
1998 - STC – Stability and Traction Control
1998 - DSTC – Dynamic Stability and Traction Control
1998 - EBD – Electronic Brake Distribution

2000 - ISOFIX anchorages with rearward–facing child safety seat
2000 - Dual Stage Airbag
2001 - SCC – Volvo Safety Concept Car
2002 - RSC – Roll Stability Control
2002 - ROPS – Roll Over Protection System (XC90)
2002 - New integrated child seat 2nd row (XC90)
2002 - Lower Cross Member (XC90)
2002 - New compatible front design (XC90)
2002 - Safe 3rd row seats (XC90)
2002 - New Front Structure (XC90)
2003 - New Front Structure (S40, V50)
2003 - IDIS – Intelligent Driver Information System
2004 - BLIS – Blind Spot Information System
2004 - Water repellent glass


I wasn't speaking to suby's awd, but rather to their point of using technology to prevent an accident. Volvo clearly could be doing this, but they aren't. DSTC, or the lacktherof, is the perfect example. DSTC will be standard on all '07 models. I've got an XC90 on which DSTC and RSC have always been standard.

[Jorge-789995]

I am considering getting rid of it because of the SAFETY issuing relating to the ETM. ..... I do not trust Volvo in the safety department anymore. I will NEVER buy another volvo because they knowingly put an unsafe car on the road.

I guess it was bound to happen. Far too many threads wander too far off topic and someone starts complaining about their ETM. I don’t think your ETM failure is a safety issue.

You should start by defining safety. Maybe we should discuss the different types of safety. For lack of a better term, primary and secondary safety might do the trick. Primary would be the more active features that keep you alive during a crash… crumple zones, air bags, strong roof etc. etc. Secondary safety might be those intangibles that contribute to you avoiding the collision… good view of the road, comfortable seat, good defrosters etc. etc.

Pep, what you are referring to is fault tolerance. The car has an ETM, and you’ve discovered that it is a single point of failure leaving the car in a limp home mode or possibly worse, dead on the side of the road. Your car (no ALL cars) has many more single points of failure that could die within the first 100k and leave you stranded. Think about the fuel pump, water pump, alternator, timing belt, and any ignition component, the list goes on and on. How about those tires? A flat would leave you stranded in a similar way that the ETM would. I’ll bet you don’t have run-flats on your car either, so you are responsible for that decision. Look at the big picture. If the situation is that dangerous that a disabled car puts your life in danger, then maybe you should think twice about driving in those conditions. Cars break down with any number of failure modes. That is a fact. We should either accept the risk and keep driving, or stop driving. We now know the ETM is just one more failure mode. Replace it like you would any other critical component, but don’t lump it into a discussion on safety unless of course you lump all the other failure points in too.

[d2gxc]

Jorge: You nailed it. Better handling or DSTC for the most part deal with issues which should be under your control, i.e. driving in a way that is consistent with the road conditions. They are not going to help much when you get rear-ended or driven off the road by the 18-wheeler that then lands up on top of you. Give me WHIPS and a strong roof any day.

[Sasquatch]

From the UK's Volvo Owners Club, a list of all important safety features introduced during the history of Volvo Cars:
...

2004 - Water repellent glass...

Doesn't ALL glass repel water?

:confused:

[littlewaywelt]

From the UK's Volvo Owners Club, a list of all important safety features introduced during the history of Volvo Cars:

1944 - Safety cage
1944 - Laminated windscreen

1954 - Defroster vents for windscreen
1956 - Windscreen washers
1957 - Anchor points for 2–point safety belts front
1958 - Anchor points for 2–point safety belts rear
1959 - 3–point front safety belts standard

1960 - Padded instrument panel
1964 - Disc brakes front
1964 - First rearward–facing child safety seat prototype tested
1966 - Rear windscreen defroster
1966 - Disc brakes all around
1966 - Dual split triangular braking system
1966 - Crumple zones front and rear
1966 - Safety door–locks
1967 - Safety belt rear seats
1968 - Head restraints front
1969 - Inertia reel safety belts
1969 - Heated rear windscreen

1971 - Reminder safety belt
1972 - 3–point safety belts – rear
1972 - Rearward–facing child safety seat
1972 - Childproof locks on rear doors
1972 - Warning lights (hazard)
1973 - Side collision protection
1973 - Collapsible steering wheel
1974 - Energy absorbing bumpers
1974 - Safe location of fuel tank
1974 - Multistage impact absorbing steering column
1974 - Bulb integrity sensor
1974 - Headlight wiper/washer
1975 - Day running lamps
1975 - Braking system with stepped bore master cylinder
1978 - Child safety booster cushion

1982 - "Anti–submarining" protection
1982 - Fog lamps front
1982 - Fog lamps rear
1982 - Warning lights in opened door
1982 - Wide angle rear view mirror
1984 - ABS anti–locking brakes
1985 - ETC – Electronic Traction Control
1986 - Brake lights in rear window
1986 - Three–point safety belt centre rear seat
1987 - Mechanical safety belt pre–tensioner
1987 - Airbag – driver

1990 - Integrated child safety cushion in centre rear seat
1991 - SIPS – Side Impact Protection System
1991 - Automatic height adjusting safety belt
1992 - Reinforced rear seats in estate models
1992 - Passenger airbag front
1993 - Three–point inertia–reel safety belts – all rear positions
1994 - SIPS–bag, side airbag
1995 - DSA – Dynamic Stability Assistance
1995 - Integrated child safety cushion outer rear seats
1997 - ROPS – Roll Over Protection System (C70)
1998 - WHIPS – Whiplash Protection System
1998 - IC – Inflatable Curtain
1998 - STC – Stability and Traction Control
1998 - DSTC – Dynamic Stability and Traction Control
1998 - EBD – Electronic Brake Distribution

2000 - ISOFIX anchorages with rearward–facing child safety seat
2000 - Dual Stage Airbag
2001 - SCC – Volvo Safety Concept Car
2002 - RSC – Roll Stability Control
2002 - ROPS – Roll Over Protection System (XC90)
2002 - New integrated child seat 2nd row (XC90)
2002 - Lower Cross Member (XC90)
2002 - New compatible front design (XC90)
2002 - Safe 3rd row seats (XC90)
2002 - New Front Structure (XC90)
2003 - New Front Structure (S40, V50)
2003 - IDIS – Intelligent Driver Information System
2004 - BLIS – Blind Spot Information System
2004 - Water repellent glass

DSTC will be standard on all '07 models. I've got an XC90 on which DSTC and RSC have always been standard.

It's good to know that DSTC will be standard.

As to innovations I was speaking to recent history, I don't see anything on that list other than BLIS (how many cars have it?) that's truly innovative and unique to Volvo.

The water repellent glass (at least on the mirrors) stinks, by the way. It's worse than not having it all, imo.

[littlewaywelt]

Jorge: You nailed it. Better handling or DSTC for the most part deal with issues which should be under your control, i.e. driving in a way that is consistent with the road conditions. They are not going to help much when you get rear-ended or driven off the road by the 18-wheeler that then lands up on top of you. Give me WHIPS and a strong roof any day.

By your argument for DSTC, ABS would not be considered a primary safety feature. Anybody want to debate the merrits of ABS? Anybody want to debate the merrits of ESC? Again, it reduces the odds of fatality is single car accidents by 50% (if memory serves). DSTC and ABS help you retain control of the car even if you're doing 60 mph in perfect weather and things go wrong.

[d2gxc]

No, LWW, that is not my argument (although it appears to be yours). I did not say which systems I regarded as being primary or secondary. I definately see the benefits of ABS. However, given a choice between DSTC on the one hand and WHIPS and a strong roof on the other, I would definately take the latter (having been rear-ended in the past by someone who failed to notice a traffic light was red).

[bircham]

I'm new to the forum so hello to everyone,

On the topic of safety I find it strange that in the US market DSTC is not standard on every Volvo as it is over here in Europe my wife's S40 (and now V50) has it as standard and of course it is standard right across the rest of the range.
The US market appears to be dominated by a 'base price' mentality when advertising car prices, but when you don't even get the most basic safety equipment you have to wonder if it isn't self-defeating.
It is recognised with certainty in Europe that traction control, ABS, ESP, DSTC etc is a fundamental safety feature and for Volvo not to include it as standard in one market when it is standard in others is I feel a cynical marketing ploy to get their car prices down initially but then make people pay extra to get their cars to the level of safety that they would expect a Volvo to offer!
It is so necessary for safety that even when you turn the traction control off, in many cars the system will still reset itself once you go over a certin speed to ensure that you don't drive without it!
Jon.

[carl]

On the topic of safety I find it strange that in the US market DSTC is not standard on every Volvo as it is over here in Europe my wife's S40 (and now V50) has it as standard and of course it is standard right across the rest of the range.
The US market appears to be dominated by a 'base price' mentality when advertising car prices, but when you don't even get the most basic safety equipment you have to wonder if it isn't self-defeating.
Jon,
I agree that DSTC is essential, but I don't think your reasoning for the current US omission of DSTC is correct. If that were the case then it would be easy to order DSTC with a new car, but as you can see from many prior posts that is not the case here. It's quite the opposite and it's almost necessary to special order the car to get DSTC. Most Volvo salesmen seem to say that DSTC is not helpful or necessary. Perhaps this is training and perhaps it is mostly because one has to order and wait for the car and most purchasers want immediate gratification (the salesman does too). I would guess that the problem could be availability of parts for worldwide shipment or the marketing here. Good news is that someone posted that DSTC will be standard in 2007.
Carl

[John@CdnRockies]

As an owner with DSTC in both our Volvo (had to be special ordered) and Mercedes (standard equipment), I can testify to its usefullness. I laud Volvo on making it standard in the latest models.

DSTC has worked flawlessly for me. I admit with some chagrin that I push the vehicle's capacities regularly - and the DSTC has been terrific in all instances. I would be reluctant to get a car without it if I'm buying new.

John

[vtie]

It's quite the opposite and it's almost necessary to special order the car to get DSTC. Most Volvo salesmen seem to say that DSTC is not helpful or necessary. Perhaps this is training and perhaps it is mostly because one has to order and wait for the car and most purchasers want immediate gratification (the salesman does too).

This seems to be another difference between car sales Europe and the States. Here, (at least in Belgium and surrounding countries), almost *all* cars are built and sold to special order. You go to a dealer, specify what car you want, and wait 2-3 months for delivery. It's rather rare to buy a car off the showroom.

As for DSTC, any salesman saying that DSTC is not helpful is simply lying. DSTC (or similar systems from other brands) has been one of the biggest recent safety innovations. It can be of tremendous help in a variety of situations you can't control (e.g. oil on the road) Shame on Volvo that they don't offer this as a standard feature on all cars and all markets. And 4WD does not replace this at all, it has nothing to do with that.