home | news | features | forums | product reviews | resources | photos | marketplace | contact |
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
They're NOT white (2nd time)
Here is a link to Volvo web site of the new XC70.
http://www.volvocars.com/campaigns/M...ow/default.htm
[2002 V70 XC] Venetian Red Metallic/Blk Leather*33k+ miles
-Hands-Free Phone Set, all packages except Nav.
Turbocharger replaced April/2005 under warranty.
[1991 245] Metallic Blue/Blue Leather*175k+ miles my daily beater.
[1994 854 GLT] *141K+ miles
Member of Volvo High Mileage Club and the miles keeps ROLLING!!
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
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
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
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
144 GL (1974)--->244 GL (1982)--->940 GLE 2.3i (1992)--->XC70 2.5T (2004)--->XC90 T5 (2018)
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.
Bookmarks