PDA

View Full Version : New XC70: official pictures...



vtie
03-06-2007, 01:01 AM
Link to a Dutch web site (with pictures)
http://www.autoweek.nl/newsdisp.php?ID=6099

vtie
03-06-2007, 01:09 AM
Volvo claims that that the terrain capacities have improved, with a 15% stiffer body, and hill descent control (from LR) as a standard feature. It will hit the showrooms in September.

Unfortunately, (initially) no T6 (over here). Only the 3.2 six and the D5

Me likes it more than the standard V70! The dark body cladding makes it look younger and more dynamic. But those white thingies here and there look a bit cheap

ashpee
03-06-2007, 04:23 AM
Can't help it. Still have difficulties with the new model range Volvo is launching (S80-on). Too elegant, soft, far away from solid robust and clean lines. Even the numerous black claddings don't give it (optical) ruggedness.

I feel the same in the latest Audi Alroad evolution: nice and refined enough, but not what I'd like to see. Only my opinion.

Hans

griso4r
03-06-2007, 04:44 AM
yes, better than the v70 but, in my opinion , still far from my beloved 2006 xc70.
i'm looking forward to see it on the road and to test it, for the moment no particular emotions looking at the pics. it's the same old point, in the past it was possible to recognise the volvo style with a glance, now with the s80 and the v70 the first comment is always: " oh, it looks like a bmw or an audi or a lexus..". i'll see if i'll ever get accustomed to the "fordized" volvo design.
ciao

tgwillard
03-06-2007, 09:08 AM
Nice pictures of the 2008 XC70. Don't care for the bright trim on the front and rear bumpers, but interior looks interesting. I am looking forward to seeing one close up at my dealer in September.

hd70
03-06-2007, 09:19 AM
some more pictures (unfortunately German text only, but a little video in English)

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/medien/foto-shows/news/mpsfshw_show_500936_14093.hbs?ext_index=0&ext_show_id=MPSFSHW::SHOW::500936&backtrack=%2Fnews%2Fauto_-_produkte%2Fhxcms_article_502473_14204.hbs&

Willy
03-06-2007, 09:25 AM
Yes, the pictures are nice, but IMHO the car isn't. Especially the front looks bulky and has lost
the elegant design of the current model(s). I also find the interior to sober, tomuch strait lines,
the dashboard looks cold and uninviting to me. Apart from a different shape, I can't see any
advantage in it (of course the marketing guys will disagree, but they
always find "good" reasons to convince us to buy a new car).
When volvo prsesnted the first S80/V70/S60 models, I found it were the best looking models they
had produced so far, I found them among the better looking cars on the (EU) market. It seems to
me that will be the case for a number of years to come (as the new S80 and V50 already predicted).
I must admit it always takes a long time before I adjust to new trends, but the trend towards
"heavy nosed" cars has been going on for some time now and I still don't like it. But perhaps we
may be lucky Volvo didn't adapt the whale mouth of the new Audi's!
On the other hand, I have confidence in the dynamic qualities of the new V/XC and I never bought
a 140 or 240 because they were such beautiful cars to look at :)
Willy

littlewaywelt
03-06-2007, 09:29 AM
and hill descent control (from LR) as a standard feature. I

Didn't LR/RR take hill descent control from the Benz G-wagon?

It's a pretty cool feature, but is it really necessary on this car? This seems to be a feature that less than one out of one hundred would ever use. Could Volvo be aiming it as an application for an icy road/snowy road? I live at the top of a pretty steep hill and even when it snows the car seems to do fine without it but maybe it would be a plus.



As to the front of the car....I love it. To me, it looks more sporty & aggressive, particularly the headlights, grill and the cut of the hood. It looks like they borrowed a lot of the styling of the S40/V50

vtie
03-06-2007, 10:20 AM
Didn't LR/RR take hill descent control from the Benz G-wagon?

I don't know true the origin, but given the Ford link, I would suspect that the incarnation in the XC70 comes from the LR(discovery?)



It's a pretty cool feature, but is it really necessary on this car? This seems to be a feature that less than one out of one hundred would ever use. Could Volvo be aiming it as an application for an icy road/snowy road? I live at the top of a pretty steep hill and even when it snows the car seems to do fine without it but maybe it would be a plus.
I think Volvo is aiming at a marketing positioning in the first place. Now that the market is flooded with wannabee-crossovers (at least here in Europe), they need some features so that they can claim that the XC70 has some true offroad capabilities. Since HDC is an electronic trick in the first place, it's a relatively cheap feature to add, and it adds to the image. Whether or not a lot of people is going to use it is perhaps the last of their concerns... :)

TrueBlue
03-06-2007, 01:09 PM
The outside (when you have taken away the truly awful brightwork) doesn't look too much of a major facelift.

Remember when the MkI V70 turned into the MKII version. I wasn't over keen; now I thing it's great.

The interior does look a bit bland, but to my way of thinking it's more due to the very light colouring on the lower parts. A bit of synthetic wood finish and slightly darker colouring and we'll all be wondering what the fuss was about. After all, who would actually buy red inserts in a charcoal seat (option on current models)?

Volvo desperately needs to attract NEW customers, those that truly, truly know will always buy.

HDC is a jolly good idea - IMHO

JRL
03-06-2007, 03:24 PM
Unfortunately, (initially) no T6 (over here). Only the 3.2 six and the D5

But those white thingies here and there look a bit cheap

The lack of a turbo is unbelievable! This thing weighs about 5-700 lbs more than P2 XC
The "white thingies" are silver plastic and I'm sure could be painted black or body color in a few minutes

brissim
03-06-2007, 05:41 PM
I too am not particularly impressed. As several have said, the white surrounds of the front fog lights and rear lights is plain ugly. And again as others have said, the choice of engines is a disappointment. I just don't think the 3.2l I6 is such a big improvement over the 2.5T. With (I suspect) an increase in weight, it really needed the 3.0T from the new V70. And while the D5 engine is great for small and medium weight cars, by the time it gets into the XC70 (and S80/XC90 for that matter) it really begins to struggle. Volvo needs a 6 cylinder diesel.

Based on what I've seen, I think I'll be hanging on to my 05 XC70 for a bit longer and see what develops especially as far as the engines are concerned.

Tony

JRL
03-06-2007, 06:12 PM
They're NOT white (2nd time)

RedXC
03-06-2007, 10:44 PM
Here is a link to Volvo web site of the new XC70.

http://www.volvocars.com/campaigns/MY08/AllNewXC70/GenevaMotorShow/default.htm

brissim
03-06-2007, 11:18 PM
JRL,

I stand corrected. But whether the "thingys" are white or silver the comment stands. It looks ugly and detracts from the rest of what is a good looking car. I don't like things on cars which are purely cosmetic and serve no real purpose. I take your point about being able to paint over them, but IMHO the car would look much better if they were simply not there.

Tony

AWD*V70XC
03-07-2007, 12:56 AM
This needs moving to the NEW 2008+ section where all comparisons can be made on the ALL NEW XC70.

A bit pointless running two separate sections discussing the same thing, duplicating the same comments etc

vtie
03-07-2007, 01:12 AM
I just don't think the 3.2l I6 is such a big improvement over the 2.5T.

I would go further: its a step back. Judiging from the numbers, it's horrible. This is a comparison, based on the S80 (where engines both are available, manual transmission)

...........Power....0-100km/h....Top_speed....Average_consumption
2.5T.....200pk.......7.7s...........235km/h...........9.2l/100km
3.2.......238pk.......7.9s...........240km/h...........9.8l/100km

So, in the S80 the 3.2 is a bit slower in acceleration, 5km/h faster in top speed, but consumes considerably more! The 2.5T loses in power output, but wins from a much better distribution over the revs. The torque you have at low revs is one of the nice things I always enjoy with turbo aspired cars. Personally, I don't see any improvement at all, apart from the fact that you can tell your friends that it's a 6-cyl (who cares)
I can only hope that later on they will also bring the T6 to the new XC70

Willy
03-07-2007, 01:57 AM
Indeed, the 3.2 6 cylinder engine, it doesn't have the wide (and flat) powerband of the 2.5T.
As Vtie implies, the powerband is what makes the 2.5T such a nice engine!
Willy

griso4r
03-07-2007, 03:44 AM
I would go further: its a step back. Judiging from the numbers, it's horrible. This is a comparison, based on the S80 (where engines both are available, manual transmission)

...........Power....0-100km/h....Top_speed....Average_consumption
2.5T.....200pk.......7.7s...........235km/h...........9.2l/100km
3.2.......238pk.......7.9s...........240km/h...........9.8l/100km

So, in the S80 the 3.2 is a bit slower in acceleration, 5km/h faster in top speed, but consumes considerably more! The 2.5T loses in power output, but wins from a much better distribution over the revs. The torque you have at low revs is one of the nice things I always enjoy with turbo aspired cars. Personally, I don't see any improvement at all, apart from the fact that you can tell your friends that it's a 6-cyl (who cares)
I can only hope that later on they will also bring the T6 to the new XC70volvo is going to create a 3.0 litres diesel modifying the t6 engine. the experience made with the d5 originated by the 2.5 t has been more than positive, so i think the new 3 litres could be the perfect engine for xc70 and 90. hopefully it will be utilized also in the US.

vtie
03-07-2007, 05:03 AM
volvo is going to create a 3.0 litres diesel modifying the t6 engine. the experience made with the d5 originated by the 2.5 t has been more than positive, so i think the new 3 litres could be the perfect engine for xc70 and 90. hopefully it will be utilized also in the US.

According to my information, the new 2008 V70 will have a 3.0T engine, called "T6", delivering 285 hp. But apparently it won't be available (initially) in the XC70. What a shame!

Of course, a 3L diesel with some 240 hp is what I would really be looking for. Finally some competition for the offerings Audi, BMW and Mercedes have.

AWD*V70XC
03-07-2007, 09:56 AM
I can only hope that later on they will also bring the T6 to the new XC70

Why? why would you want a T6 engine in a XC70? it would just seem wasted, even the old T5 was never an option.

budrichard
03-07-2007, 12:53 PM
With Ford at the helm, you can bet that any decisions are based on cost and market share. The 'thingy's' are an example of design for design sake. The 6 cyl engine is probably cheaper to manufacture than the 2.5T, the fact that it gets less gas milage is completely lost on Ford. Each succesive generation of Volvo's has had decreased mileage. The enterior ventilation supplies look like they are off a Ford Focus and probably are shared with other Ford products.
I simply don't know what I will replace the '99XC with when the time comes?-Dick

RedXC
03-07-2007, 10:19 PM
This thread does not have the "shown" photos of the new XC70. Where is it? The links aren't helping either. Post it.

vtie
03-08-2007, 12:43 AM
Why? why would you want a T6 engine in a XC70? it would just seem wasted, even the old T5 was never an option.

First, it would be a better match for what the competition (BMW, Audi, Mercedes) has to offer. For me personally, I love turbo-aspired engines matched with a manual transmission. The flat torque distribution makes them such a joy to drive. Right now, the only turbo engine available for the new XC70 is the 185hp D5.


This thread does not have the "shown" photos of the new XC70. Where is it? The links aren't helping either. Post it.

Click on the link posted in the initial message. On that web site, you will find plenty of pictures.

AWD*V70XC
03-08-2007, 08:18 AM
Does the allroad have a T6 engine? not had the time to chek the range recently.

vtie
03-08-2007, 09:11 AM
Does the allroad have a T6 engine? not had the time to chek the range recently.

The allroad offers a broad range of engines, matching a T6 and even going beyond that: upscale you have the 3.2 FSI (255 hp), and the 4.2 FSI (350 hp).

In the diesel department, the A6 allroad offers the 3.0 TDI with 233 hp. I really wonder how Volvo will keep competing in the upscale market in Europe with only a 185hp diesel to offer in the XC70 and XC90

AWD*V70XC
03-08-2007, 09:47 AM
Point taken, and the 4.2l engine in the Audi is a nice unit.

Tom H
03-08-2007, 05:56 PM
Here's the version I want. Maybe someone will offer aftermarket rings to match the cladding color.

http://www.volvoxc.com/volvo_photo_gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-5832

budrichard
03-09-2007, 01:35 PM
There is no more All Road that I can find. Closest seems to be the Q7 but no clearances are given? The All Roads i have observed have just been 'Pocket Rockets', whose owners are only intertested in blasting down the Freeways. -Dick

dsb
03-09-2007, 01:57 PM
There is no more All Road that I can find. Closest seems to be the Q7 but no clearances are given? The All Roads i have observed have just been 'Pocket Rockets', whose owners are only intertested in blasting down the Freeways. -Dick

A friend of mine was thinking about getting an allroad and I was looking on Audi's site for them. You have to look under A6.

budrichard
03-10-2007, 07:27 AM
A friend of mine was thinking about getting an allroad and I was looking on Audi's site for them. You have to look under A6.

The A6 may be the lineage for the AllRoad but it is not called the AllRoad.
-Dick

vtie
03-10-2007, 11:17 AM
The A6 may be the lineage for the AllRoad but it is not called the AllRoad.
-Dick

If I'm not mistaken, the new generation allroad isn't imported in the States anymore. But it's available in Europe. The differences between a mainstream A6 avant and the allroad have gotten smaller, being almost only cosmetic. The pneumatic suspension that can be adjusted in height can be now ordered on the A6 as well (as well as quattro of course). The allroad goes a bit higher, has an "offroad" mode for the ESP, and there is an option pack with a engine protection underneath and tires with deeper grip.

Filibuster
03-10-2007, 01:14 PM
I would go further: its a step back. Judiging from the numbers, it's horrible. This is a comparison, based on the S80 (where engines both are available, manual transmission)

...........Power....0-100km/h....Top_speed....Average_consumption
2.5T.....200pk.......7.7s...........235km/h...........9.2l/100km
3.2.......238pk.......7.9s...........240km/h...........9.8l/100km

So, in the S80 the 3.2 is a bit slower in acceleration, 5km/h faster in top speed, but consumes considerably more! The 2.5T loses in power output, but wins from a much better distribution over the revs. The torque you have at low revs is one of the nice things I always enjoy with turbo aspired cars. Personally, I don't see any improvement at all, apart from the fact that you can tell your friends that it's a 6-cyl (who cares)
I can only hope that later on they will also bring the T6 to the new XC70

This is so typical how Volvo is run (ruined) by business people and not by engineers. The marketing thinks it cooler with a 6 cylinder unit even though it looks like the old 5 cylinder with turbo is better.

I would quote Ferdinad Piech (head of VW) who said something like: "Engineers are the best managers. They can count just as well as the economy guys but they understand the technology as well." Volvo, it seems, has not understood this. They should put engineers at all key positions.
They should have also developed the 2.5T futher to be more compact and lighter, more powerful, lower fuel consumption and with chain driven cams. It is so obvious that the guys that can build cars at Volvo are not allowed to do it...

BTW Three year old XC90 are among the worst car in the Swedish MOT tests. More than 25% do not pass the first technical inspection! They are not road worthy... The problems are with brakes and steering links. Volvo admits that it is their fault but refuses to compensate the customers. How is that for being shortsighted? V70 is also far worse than the average. This is also so typical for the let's choose cheap components mentality of white shirt economy guys. :(

doublecheese
03-10-2007, 05:47 PM
I don't know why but I don't like the front and back of the new XC70. It looks OK from the sides. :))

BTW here are two shots of a XC70 next to 2007 Audi A6 Allroad 3.0TDI

A friend bought it for 136.000 Euro, yes you heard it right !! 136.000Euro = $ 179.000, It's got alot of extras but we still pay alot of taxes around here :(

The base price for 2007 XC70 2.5T is 75.000 Euro, USD 99.000$ with some extras I got an offer at 92.000 Euro's (US$121.000)

I still think the current gen. XC70 looks better than the new Audi Allroad, what do you think ?

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/1465/dsc01613customsm1.jpg

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/4577/dsc01614custombv9.jpg

AWD*V70XC
03-11-2007, 02:19 AM
I like the rounded back, the front seems to have lost some of the muscle and appeal it use to have or should have. Still I will reserve judgement until I see my first one in the flesh :D

budrichard
03-11-2007, 05:45 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the new generation allroad isn't imported in the States anymore. But it's available in Europe. The differences between a mainstream A6 avant and the allroad have gotten smaller, being almost only cosmetic. The pneumatic suspension that can be adjusted in height can be now ordered on the A6 as well (as well as quattro of course). The allroad goes a bit higher, has an "offroad" mode for the ESP, and there is an option pack with a engine protection underneath and tires with deeper grip.

I'll bet a $ to a donut that the reason the AllRoad is not brought into the US is so it will not detract from the Q7 sales.
When I went to purchase a C4 Porsche, I was told at the time that it was not brought into the US anymore and I should wait and purchase the new, at that time, Cayenne. Fat Chance!
Seems like the same philosphy. without the AllRaod features the A6 is useless to me as an alternative to the XC. -Dick

vtie
03-12-2007, 01:15 AM
I'll bet a $ to a donut that the reason the AllRoad is not brought into the US is so it will not detract from the Q7 sales.

Exactly. The marketing people figured out that the Q7 would appeal more to the US market, and the allroad would have a chance in less SUV-oriented Europe. Dangerous guys, those marketing people...


Seems like the same philosphy. without the AllRaod features the A6 is useless to me as an alternative to the XC. -Dick

Interestingly, the new allroad and the new XC70 seem to be diverging in different directions. Audi brings the allroad more back to a car (dropping the optional low gearing, lowering the maximum clearance, less SUV-like look). Volvo seems to be exploiting the offroad appeal of the XC70 more in the new version (HDC, improved approach/departure angles, specifing a wading depth of 30cm, which they never specified before)

For me, the XC70 is still the best mix. But they need to offer more performant engines in order to remain competitive. Especially a good 3.0 Turbo Diesel!

travelkids
03-16-2007, 10:18 PM
I find it unfortunate that they did away with some of the protective molding around the front/grill. In my 2002 it is a pain to clean, but it has saved the car up here in Tahoe, CA. The divets/chunks/cuts to the molding would be huge pieces of paint missing on the new xc70 2008.

Too much metallic eye candy on the outside, cheapens it.

Hope the XC60 comes through for me!

Big
03-23-2007, 05:52 PM
I find it unfortunate that they did away with some of the protective molding around the front/grill. In my 2002 it is a pain to clean, but it has saved the car up here in Tahoe, CA. The divets/chunks/cuts to the molding would be huge pieces of paint missing on the new xc70 2008. The clear protective film such as made by 3M has worked well on our XC90 so I don't see that as a big problem.


Too much metallic eye candy on the outside, cheapens it. That was my initial impression from the photos but I'd have to see one in person to decide.

They have certainly added all the bells & whistles (except, it seems, an updated nav system). I could really use the hill descent control where I drive.

travelkids
03-25-2007, 12:49 PM
The clear protective film such as made by 3M has worked well on our XC90 so I don't see that as a big problem.

I don't care for the invisible bras. They will yellow with time and quicker with improper care. Plus, with what they use on the roads here in Tahoe it would not be sufficient enough. Especially if it is taking nicks/cuts out of the Plastic now. I know near Hood River on 36 they use some pretty bad stuff in winter as well!

"That was my initial impression from the photos but I'd have to see one in person to decide. "

Must say its new look did turn my buddy into an XC fan from his targeted Audi!! As for me I will wait too!


They have certainly added all the bells & whistles (except, it seems, an updated nav system). I could really use the hill descent control where I drive.


Descent control sounds great.

littlewaywelt
03-26-2007, 06:44 AM
Descent control sounds great.

seriously? why? it's hardly needed even by the most serious off roaders and off roading situations.

descent control strikes me as something that's really beyond the capability of the vehicle. the only exceptions I can see are possibly a steep snowy surface or wet grass.

how would you anticipate using it?

Big
03-26-2007, 07:12 AM
seriously? why? it's hardly needed even by the most serious off roaders and off roading situations.

descent control strikes me as something that's really beyond the capability of the vehicle. the only exceptions I can see are possibly a steep snowy surface or wet grass.

how would you anticipate using it? I would use it coming down long, steep grades on loose tracks such as off of the numerous buttes and ridges around where I live. I've never used a descent control, having had a real 4WD with low-range in the past, but I assume it works better than my current situation where I must ride the brake pedal all the way down. :eek: Call it a poor-man's low-range. It would be used infrequently but could be nice to have in my part of the world.

XCelerate
04-18-2007, 04:00 AM
I would go further: its a step back. Judiging from the numbers, it's horrible. This is a comparison, based on the S80 (where engines both are available, manual transmission)

...........Power....0-100km/h....Top_speed....Average_consumption
2.5T.....200pk.......7.7s...........235km/h...........9.2l/100km
3.2.......238pk.......7.9s...........240km/h...........9.8l/100km

So, in the S80 the 3.2 is a bit slower in acceleration, 5km/h faster in top speed, but consumes considerably more! The 2.5T loses in power output, but wins from a much better distribution over the revs. The torque you have at low revs is one of the nice things I always enjoy with turbo aspired cars. Personally, I don't see any improvement at all, apart from the fact that you can tell your friends that it's a 6-cyl (who cares)
I can only hope that later on they will also bring the T6 to the new XC70

I'm afraid Vtie is mistaken. Vtie is comparing a 2.5T manual and a 3.2 geartronic. According to a comparison tool on:
http://www.volvocars.nl/models/s80/techSpec.htm
the S80 2.5T and 3.2 compare as follows (both with geartronic; the S80 3.2 is available with geartronic only - NL):
...........Power....0-100km/h....Top_speed....Average_consumption
2.5T.....200pk.......8.0s...........230km/h...........9.9l/100km
3.2.......238pk.......7.9s...........240km/h...........9.8l/100km

So, the 3.2 has more power, is a wee bit quicker and uses less fuel. It would not make sense anyway that the 3.2, with more torque (at lower rpm) and more hp, would be slower.
BTW, my 2.5T (210hp standard - tuned to 245hp) has never reached averages of 9.9l/100km. It's been 12.5l/100km. Of course I don't know what the 3.2 will use in real life, but I will find out someday ...