Volvo Safety - Do You Still Get What You Pay For?
- Thread starter Best F100
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: FordBroncoVWJeta
I would probably never buy a Volvo just because the Chinese own it. I have enough Made in China and owned by China [censored] as it is.
Absolutely. My parents drove nothing but Volvos for years and I owned one as well. Never again.
I would probably never buy a Volvo just because the Chinese own it. I have enough Made in China and owned by China [censored] as it is.
Absolutely. My parents drove nothing but Volvos for years and I owned one as well. Never again.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL
Just look at the safety ratings....
Link?
https://www.nhtsa.gov/ratings
Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL
Just look at the safety ratings....
Link?
https://www.nhtsa.gov/ratings
I am more interested in handling and braking so I can avoid getting into accident if possible. Volvo never excel in those two disciplines.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
I am more interested in handling and braking so I can avoid getting into accident if possible. Volvo never excel in those two disciplines.
Really?
All Volvos excel in accident avoidance tests like the "moose test."
They're not "sporty," but they handle very well.
I am more interested in handling and braking so I can avoid getting into accident if possible. Volvo never excel in those two disciplines.
Really?
All Volvos excel in accident avoidance tests like the "moose test."
They're not "sporty," but they handle very well.
Of course, you could keep a sharp eye out for an old Volvo, the kind that built its reputation for safety. There is an old 240 for $2,500 I have been passing by for a week when I go to the grocery store.
http://www.eliteautomotivetn.com/mobile/...35-5ad50ef16641
http://www.eliteautomotivetn.com/mobile/...35-5ad50ef16641
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: edyvw
I am more interested in handling and braking so I can avoid getting into accident if possible. Volvo never excel in those two disciplines.
Really?
All Volvos excel in accident avoidance tests like the "moose test."
They're not "sporty," but they handle very well.
A lot of cars excel in "moose" test and a lot of cars handle well. Same like a lot of cars get same test results from crash tests like Volvo.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
I am more interested in handling and braking so I can avoid getting into accident if possible. Volvo never excel in those two disciplines.
Really?
All Volvos excel in accident avoidance tests like the "moose test."
They're not "sporty," but they handle very well.
A lot of cars excel in "moose" test and a lot of cars handle well. Same like a lot of cars get same test results from crash tests like Volvo.
I've owned 3 S60s. All have handled superbly. The steering is crisp, they track perfectly, and the brakes are powerful, balanced and predictable.
With Volvo crash test safety, the balance of internet lore I've seen equates to this. From engineering to the crash test standards (which we all know everyone does) volvo is no longer a head and shoulders leader. Several other companies have caught up with specific models, though you can't assume safety by brand. However, volvo is said by real-world persons such as police/EMT to still perform better than most on scene. Volvo at least used to send engineers to look at real-world wrecked volvos to assess for weaknesses - using real-world results as design criteria, not just predictable, controlled lab crash tests which can be designed to.
The real-world testimony from rescue personnel says a lot to me - more than just a controlled lab test. Remember the black eye volvo received in the add where they stacked a box truck on one of their cars, and allegedly (?) extra bracing was added? It may have been - but here's the catch - a real safety problem in Sweden was rollover off of steep mountain drops - so volvo for instance had reinforced roofs for decades, though there were no tests for that until just recently. They were looking for things outside of our tests based on real-world occurrence.
The drawback? volvos are still heavy little piglets. They set their engines up to be torque-high at low revs which hides their weight in normal driving, but run out of lungs quickly over 3-4k rpm. Even the Turbo I own, while it *never* needs to downshift with 250 something ft/lbs of torque in a 4 door midsize sedan, and pulls respectably well at all speeds, it's less of a rocket than the HP/TQ numbers would suggest (somewhere around 250 each, with torque coming in strong around 2k rpm). They are heavy little cars. The SUV (is that the V series?), is hard to prod even with the 250hp turbo 5 that would make a comparable toyota or honda SUV a respectable driver.
At least up until the Gheely ownership. They are still built in Sweden from what I understand, but IDK where the design philosophies are going nowadays... The Ford ownership didn't bother me too much except that there was a definite cheapening of materials and tolerances between 2005 and 2009, everything from body gap, to leather, to glass, adhesives and interior plastics-- all that changed-- but the chassis and driveline seem just as robust.
-m
With Volvo crash test safety, the balance of internet lore I've seen equates to this. From engineering to the crash test standards (which we all know everyone does) volvo is no longer a head and shoulders leader. Several other companies have caught up with specific models, though you can't assume safety by brand. However, volvo is said by real-world persons such as police/EMT to still perform better than most on scene. Volvo at least used to send engineers to look at real-world wrecked volvos to assess for weaknesses - using real-world results as design criteria, not just predictable, controlled lab crash tests which can be designed to.
The real-world testimony from rescue personnel says a lot to me - more than just a controlled lab test. Remember the black eye volvo received in the add where they stacked a box truck on one of their cars, and allegedly (?) extra bracing was added? It may have been - but here's the catch - a real safety problem in Sweden was rollover off of steep mountain drops - so volvo for instance had reinforced roofs for decades, though there were no tests for that until just recently. They were looking for things outside of our tests based on real-world occurrence.
The drawback? volvos are still heavy little piglets. They set their engines up to be torque-high at low revs which hides their weight in normal driving, but run out of lungs quickly over 3-4k rpm. Even the Turbo I own, while it *never* needs to downshift with 250 something ft/lbs of torque in a 4 door midsize sedan, and pulls respectably well at all speeds, it's less of a rocket than the HP/TQ numbers would suggest (somewhere around 250 each, with torque coming in strong around 2k rpm). They are heavy little cars. The SUV (is that the V series?), is hard to prod even with the 250hp turbo 5 that would make a comparable toyota or honda SUV a respectable driver.
At least up until the Gheely ownership. They are still built in Sweden from what I understand, but IDK where the design philosophies are going nowadays... The Ford ownership didn't bother me too much except that there was a definite cheapening of materials and tolerances between 2005 and 2009, everything from body gap, to leather, to glass, adhesives and interior plastics-- all that changed-- but the chassis and driveline seem just as robust.
-m
Volvo have a "Vision 2020" statement.
One of the noticeable outcomes of this is that new Volvos come with all the safety features as standard. We recently bought a new XC60 and the array of anti-collision, lane departure, brake assist etc systems that are standard is incredible. Not to mention the sheer ergonomics of the thing, which make driving a less stressful endeavour. Sure, it's no sports car, but it's a nice way of getting around.
One of the noticeable outcomes of this is that new Volvos come with all the safety features as standard. We recently bought a new XC60 and the array of anti-collision, lane departure, brake assist etc systems that are standard is incredible. Not to mention the sheer ergonomics of the thing, which make driving a less stressful endeavour. Sure, it's no sports car, but it's a nice way of getting around.
Originally Posted By: Jett Rink
Of course, you could keep a sharp eye out for an old Volvo, the kind that built its reputation for safety. There is an old 240 for $2,500 I have been passing by for a week when I go to the grocery store.
http://www.eliteautomotivetn.com/mobile/...35-5ad50ef16641
On of the British car shows crashed an older Volvo into a newer compact car and it wasn't good at all for the Volvo, probable fatality vs a high chance of no injuries at all. And that was before the small overlap crash test designs. A Fiesta almost weighs as much as a 240 now and its got 2 decades of research on other safety features as well.
If you want a 80's-90's volvo style vehicle, probably the Legacy/Outback is your car. Its got very good passive and active safety systems at a reasonable price and is a reasonably simple car as well. Made in Indiana too.
Of course, you could keep a sharp eye out for an old Volvo, the kind that built its reputation for safety. There is an old 240 for $2,500 I have been passing by for a week when I go to the grocery store.
http://www.eliteautomotivetn.com/mobile/...35-5ad50ef16641
On of the British car shows crashed an older Volvo into a newer compact car and it wasn't good at all for the Volvo, probable fatality vs a high chance of no injuries at all. And that was before the small overlap crash test designs. A Fiesta almost weighs as much as a 240 now and its got 2 decades of research on other safety features as well.
If you want a 80's-90's volvo style vehicle, probably the Legacy/Outback is your car. Its got very good passive and active safety systems at a reasonable price and is a reasonably simple car as well. Made in Indiana too.
Interesting topic given I've driven one for 20 yrs now.
In the 70's - early 90's, the Europeans were way ahead of everyone else, in many areas. Period. They handled better, were more efficient, were safer, side-impact beams in the doors, used 3-point seat belts, disc brakes, fuel injection, etc. long list.
It took years, decades?, for everyone else to catch up. But catch up they have.
Not sure re: "...in the event of a crash...". It depends on too many factors to list here. Crash tests are carried out in a 'stupid, non-active' mode meaning a vehicle is rammed into a barrier or another car, at a given angle, at a certain speed, often indoors, etc. Compare this to an intelligent, experienced driver who will attempt to avoid a collision in the first place.
Human-based active collision avoidance intelligence. You can't program that. It has to be learned.
The T5-sled will out-accelerate, out-brake and out-maneuver a FST/Suburban, most SUVs. The facts all point so. In addition, I'm also an excellent driver who will swerve to actively avoid a collision rather than panic, give up or freeze. I've never been in a serious or severe collision in my life (57yrs). I've avoided hundreds though, the most serious flying into a grassy median at 55mph to avoid an idiot who waited until I got close, then pulled out in front of me at the last minute and didn't bother to accelerate.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ub...ent#Post3993484
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ub...ime#Post4388153
The sled has no traction control. No stability control either as the geometry makes it so. I flew into the grassy median at speed with no concern about rolling over. She didn't even wag-her-tail when transitioning from the off-camber grassy ditch back onto the asphalt and staying in the left lane where I was before. If I had been in a FST or SUV though, I'd probably have rolled over or slammed into the back of said idiot.
Finally, not saying ONLY A VOLVO wagon/sedan is capable of doing this. Far from it. Plenty of other well-handling vehicles that would with an experienced driver on-board.
In the 70's - early 90's, the Europeans were way ahead of everyone else, in many areas. Period. They handled better, were more efficient, were safer, side-impact beams in the doors, used 3-point seat belts, disc brakes, fuel injection, etc. long list.
It took years, decades?, for everyone else to catch up. But catch up they have.
Not sure re: "...in the event of a crash...". It depends on too many factors to list here. Crash tests are carried out in a 'stupid, non-active' mode meaning a vehicle is rammed into a barrier or another car, at a given angle, at a certain speed, often indoors, etc. Compare this to an intelligent, experienced driver who will attempt to avoid a collision in the first place.
Human-based active collision avoidance intelligence. You can't program that. It has to be learned.
The T5-sled will out-accelerate, out-brake and out-maneuver a FST/Suburban, most SUVs. The facts all point so. In addition, I'm also an excellent driver who will swerve to actively avoid a collision rather than panic, give up or freeze. I've never been in a serious or severe collision in my life (57yrs). I've avoided hundreds though, the most serious flying into a grassy median at 55mph to avoid an idiot who waited until I got close, then pulled out in front of me at the last minute and didn't bother to accelerate.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ub...ent#Post3993484
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ub...ime#Post4388153
The sled has no traction control. No stability control either as the geometry makes it so. I flew into the grassy median at speed with no concern about rolling over. She didn't even wag-her-tail when transitioning from the off-camber grassy ditch back onto the asphalt and staying in the left lane where I was before. If I had been in a FST or SUV though, I'd probably have rolled over or slammed into the back of said idiot.
Finally, not saying ONLY A VOLVO wagon/sedan is capable of doing this. Far from it. Plenty of other well-handling vehicles that would with an experienced driver on-board.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
I am more interested in handling and braking so I can avoid getting into accident if possible. Volvo never excel in those two disciplines.
I certainly disagree.
Read my earlier post....
I am more interested in handling and braking so I can avoid getting into accident if possible. Volvo never excel in those two disciplines.
I certainly disagree.
Read my earlier post....
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
On of the British car shows crashed an older Volvo into a newer compact car and it wasn't good at all for the Volvo, probable fatality vs a high chance of no injuries at all. And that was before the small overlap crash test designs. A Fiesta almost weighs as much as a 240 now and its got 2 decades of research on other safety features as well.
Please elaborate on 'older Volvo'. Waht year & model?
On of the British car shows crashed an older Volvo into a newer compact car and it wasn't good at all for the Volvo, probable fatality vs a high chance of no injuries at all. And that was before the small overlap crash test designs. A Fiesta almost weighs as much as a 240 now and its got 2 decades of research on other safety features as well.
Please elaborate on 'older Volvo'. Waht year & model?
Originally Posted By: meep
The drawback? volvos are still heavy little piglets. They set their engines up to be torque-high at low revs which hides their weight in normal driving, but run out of lungs quickly over 3-4k rpm. Even the Turbo I own, while it *never* needs to downshift with 250 something ft/lbs of torque in a 4 door midsize sedan, and pulls respectably well at all speeds, it's less of a rocket than the HP/TQ numbers would suggest (somewhere around 250 each, with torque coming in strong around 2k rpm). They are heavy little cars. The SUV (is that the V series?), is hard to prod even with the 250hp turbo 5 that would make a comparable toyota or honda SUV a respectable driver.
1. Depends on model/engine/turbo combination. The sled is a T5 with the high-pressure turbocharger. There is a bit of a lag when floored, but it more than makes up for it once the turbine spools up. Then it'll really take off. Recently experienced such a situation on a freeway where my lane and the left one were at a dead stop. I jumped out to the right lane which was clear to exit the mess (Probably a major accident as 3 lanes were backed up for about 3 miles or so).
2. According to my sticker, the sled weighs in at 4,340 lbs. Wagons weigh a bit more than the sedans if I recall.
3. The SUV is the XC-90, not the V-series. The sled is a V70 (wagon) T5. The former can indeed be "hard-to-prod" depending on the engine and whether it's NA or not. Further, the XC90 weighs an additional 700 lbs (or more). They need more HP/torque to haul the mail. Plus a stronger transmission.
The drawback? volvos are still heavy little piglets. They set their engines up to be torque-high at low revs which hides their weight in normal driving, but run out of lungs quickly over 3-4k rpm. Even the Turbo I own, while it *never* needs to downshift with 250 something ft/lbs of torque in a 4 door midsize sedan, and pulls respectably well at all speeds, it's less of a rocket than the HP/TQ numbers would suggest (somewhere around 250 each, with torque coming in strong around 2k rpm). They are heavy little cars. The SUV (is that the V series?), is hard to prod even with the 250hp turbo 5 that would make a comparable toyota or honda SUV a respectable driver.
1. Depends on model/engine/turbo combination. The sled is a T5 with the high-pressure turbocharger. There is a bit of a lag when floored, but it more than makes up for it once the turbine spools up. Then it'll really take off. Recently experienced such a situation on a freeway where my lane and the left one were at a dead stop. I jumped out to the right lane which was clear to exit the mess (Probably a major accident as 3 lanes were backed up for about 3 miles or so).
2. According to my sticker, the sled weighs in at 4,340 lbs. Wagons weigh a bit more than the sedans if I recall.
3. The SUV is the XC-90, not the V-series. The sled is a V70 (wagon) T5. The former can indeed be "hard-to-prod" depending on the engine and whether it's NA or not. Further, the XC90 weighs an additional 700 lbs (or more). They need more HP/torque to haul the mail. Plus a stronger transmission.
Not really interested in buying that old 240, but I pulled off the road to take a closer look at it today since some Brit TV show is saying that driving one now is like signing your own death warrant.
This is not a small car. It has a fair amount of mass to it. The hood is longer than on most new vehicles. Probably no air bags, certainly not on the sides. I don't think I have ever seen a driver operating a 240 in a reckless manner, though, which could mitigate the risks.
Maybe that $2,500 price tag on this Volvo also includes a cemetery plot and a pine box, just to sweeten the deal.
This is not a small car. It has a fair amount of mass to it. The hood is longer than on most new vehicles. Probably no air bags, certainly not on the sides. I don't think I have ever seen a driver operating a 240 in a reckless manner, though, which could mitigate the risks.
Maybe that $2,500 price tag on this Volvo also includes a cemetery plot and a pine box, just to sweeten the deal.
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
On of the British car shows crashed an older Volvo into a newer compact car and it wasn't good at all for the Volvo, probable fatality vs a high chance of no injuries at all. And that was before the small overlap crash test designs. A Fiesta almost weighs as much as a 240 now and its got 2 decades of research on other safety features as well.
Please elaborate on 'older Volvo'. Waht year & model?
It was a UK tv show, "Fifth Gear". They crashed a Volve 940 into a Renault Modus, a subcompact in American terms.Both cars were traelling at 40 mph and it was an offset corner to corner collision.
The volvo had a buckled roof, the firewall washed pushed right into the leg space, the steering wheel would almost certainly have crushed the drivers ribs. It had no airbags. It would have been a miracle for a belted in driver to survive.
The Renault had an intact passenger cabin, and the doors could be opened. The airbags and pretensioner seat belts had deployed. The driver would probably have suffered only minor injuries.
I can't put up a link, but if you look up "Renault vs Volvo crash Fifth Gear" on you tube it should take you there.
Claud.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
On of the British car shows crashed an older Volvo into a newer compact car and it wasn't good at all for the Volvo, probable fatality vs a high chance of no injuries at all. And that was before the small overlap crash test designs. A Fiesta almost weighs as much as a 240 now and its got 2 decades of research on other safety features as well.
Please elaborate on 'older Volvo'. Waht year & model?
It was a UK tv show, "Fifth Gear". They crashed a Volve 940 into a Renault Modus, a subcompact in American terms.Both cars were traelling at 40 mph and it was an offset corner to corner collision.
The volvo had a buckled roof, the firewall washed pushed right into the leg space, the steering wheel would almost certainly have crushed the drivers ribs. It had no airbags. It would have been a miracle for a belted in driver to survive.
The Renault had an intact passenger cabin, and the doors could be opened. The airbags and pretensioner seat belts had deployed. The driver would probably have suffered only minor injuries.
I can't put up a link, but if you look up "Renault vs Volvo crash Fifth Gear" on you tube it should take you there.
Claud.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: edyvw
I am more interested in handling and braking so I can avoid getting into accident if possible. Volvo never excel in those two disciplines.
Really?
All Volvos excel in accident avoidance tests like the "moose test."
They're not "sporty," but they handle very well.
A lot of cars excel in "moose" test and a lot of cars handle well. Same like a lot of cars get same test results from crash tests like Volvo.
I always secretly thought you two were the same person as your knowledge and taste in cars was very similar.
This disproves that theory.
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: edyvw
I am more interested in handling and braking so I can avoid getting into accident if possible. Volvo never excel in those two disciplines.
Really?
All Volvos excel in accident avoidance tests like the "moose test."
They're not "sporty," but they handle very well.
A lot of cars excel in "moose" test and a lot of cars handle well. Same like a lot of cars get same test results from crash tests like Volvo.
I always secretly thought you two were the same person as your knowledge and taste in cars was very similar.
This disproves that theory.
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
Originally Posted By: edyvw
I am more interested in handling and braking so I can avoid getting into accident if possible. Volvo never excel in those two disciplines.
I certainly disagree.
Read my earlier post....
Yeah - if you want to out-brake and out-handle a Porsche, sure, Volvo wagon isn't quite there.
But my T5 will out handle, and out-brake, and in many cases, out-accelerate a lot of cars known for their handling and braking. Out-dragged a friend's new BMW a few years back (fighter pilots, don't ask...).
The T5 Volvo has exceptional brakes that have saved me, and my teenage drivers, from a couple of accidents. I've upgraded my wife's XC to the same 305mm rotors (from the original 286mm) that the T5 came with, so that it has great brakes as well.
That's part of what makes a Volvo wagon unique: the room of an SUV, and the handling, braking, ride, and MPG of a car.
Best of both worlds.
On the weight issue, they're not that heavy. My FWD T5 is about a 3,400# car. The XC, with its AWD system, is closer to 3,700#. That's not heavy for a car that seats 7, or can seat 5 and still haul everyone's luggage. All the glass in a wagon adds weight, but the Volvo is about the same as similar sedans (I think Sled Driver is looking at the GVWR, since the 850 platform was a bit lighter than the P2). Compared with cars of similar vintage and size, Volvos are no worse, and often lighter, than their contemporaries.
So, for everyone talking about "death-trap" older Volvos, you should compare apples to apples. Take any 70s car and compare it to the 240, which dates from the 70s. The old 240 wins the safety test hands-down. The 940 is an early 90s design, again, far ahead of the rest of cars built then, with the exception of some Mercedes models.
Here's an important data point: the Volvo XC-90 (the SUV) is about the safest car on the road. Statistically safer than any other SUV. In fact, over a 16 YEAR period, no one has died in a Volvo XC-90 in the UK.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/15/britains-safest-car-revealed-no-road-deaths-16-years/
A remarkable statistic.
If you really want a safe car, buy a Volvo.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
I am more interested in handling and braking so I can avoid getting into accident if possible. Volvo never excel in those two disciplines.
I certainly disagree.
Read my earlier post....
Yeah - if you want to out-brake and out-handle a Porsche, sure, Volvo wagon isn't quite there.
But my T5 will out handle, and out-brake, and in many cases, out-accelerate a lot of cars known for their handling and braking. Out-dragged a friend's new BMW a few years back (fighter pilots, don't ask...).
The T5 Volvo has exceptional brakes that have saved me, and my teenage drivers, from a couple of accidents. I've upgraded my wife's XC to the same 305mm rotors (from the original 286mm) that the T5 came with, so that it has great brakes as well.
That's part of what makes a Volvo wagon unique: the room of an SUV, and the handling, braking, ride, and MPG of a car.
Best of both worlds.
On the weight issue, they're not that heavy. My FWD T5 is about a 3,400# car. The XC, with its AWD system, is closer to 3,700#. That's not heavy for a car that seats 7, or can seat 5 and still haul everyone's luggage. All the glass in a wagon adds weight, but the Volvo is about the same as similar sedans (I think Sled Driver is looking at the GVWR, since the 850 platform was a bit lighter than the P2). Compared with cars of similar vintage and size, Volvos are no worse, and often lighter, than their contemporaries.
So, for everyone talking about "death-trap" older Volvos, you should compare apples to apples. Take any 70s car and compare it to the 240, which dates from the 70s. The old 240 wins the safety test hands-down. The 940 is an early 90s design, again, far ahead of the rest of cars built then, with the exception of some Mercedes models.
Here's an important data point: the Volvo XC-90 (the SUV) is about the safest car on the road. Statistically safer than any other SUV. In fact, over a 16 YEAR period, no one has died in a Volvo XC-90 in the UK.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/15/britains-safest-car-revealed-no-road-deaths-16-years/
A remarkable statistic.
If you really want a safe car, buy a Volvo.
Last edited:
Sam_Julier
$50 Site Donor 2024
^^^ Agree with Astro14 on every point. I'm missing our 2007 V70 terribly.
Sam
Sam
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
...(I think Sled Driver is looking at the GVWR, since the 850 platform was a bit lighter than the P2).
You are indeed correct sir: I read the wrong number. It should be 3250 - 3455 lbs, per the '98 manual. Thanks!
...(I think Sled Driver is looking at the GVWR, since the 850 platform was a bit lighter than the P2).
You are indeed correct sir: I read the wrong number. It should be 3250 - 3455 lbs, per the '98 manual. Thanks!
- Status