Volvo AWD vs. Subaru AWD - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars
Ford Forum Ford Forum

» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
ยป Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Ford Cars and PAG Vehicles > PAG Vehicle Discussion > Volvo
Register Home Forum Active Topics Photo Gallery Auto Loans Garage Mark Forums Read Auto Escrow

FordForums.com is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-21-2005, 01:10   #1 (permalink)
Tmuldoon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Volvo AWD vs. Subaru AWD

Hi!

Are there any Volvo owner out there who also have a Subaru?

I am seeking a decent AWD car for a good price, good reliability and
always decent cost.

Anyone care to share any experiences?

Thanks,

Tmuld.

  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-21-2005, 01:10   #2 (permalink)
arthur wouk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Volvo AWD vs. Subaru AWD

In article <1110823446.832588.173630@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Tmuldoon <tmuldoon@spliced.com> wrote:
:Hi!
:
:Are there any Volvo owner out there who also have a Subaru?
:
:I am seeking a decent AWD car for a good price, good reliability and
:always decent cost.
:
:Anyone care to share any experiences?

had a '96 subaru legacy gt wagon till about two years ago, in
addition to my volvos (wife's car). the gt is important. it had the
2.5 liter engine instead of the 2.3(?) liter which preceded it. with
the 2.3, the vehicle was way too underpowered. it would have needed a
turbo to be satisfactory. with the 2.5 is was almost adequately
powered, but could have used a turbo, as well. aside from that it was
a very nice car but not as comfortable as any of my volvos (currently a
'91 940T and a '92 960). handled pretty well. still gutless in
mountain driving which is an bummer here in colorado. gas mileage was
at most 20 even on the highway. build was quite good and the car seemed
very durable. maintenance was not expensive. that year required
premium gas. i believe that later years were able to use regular
leaded.

--
getting out of bed in the morning is an act of false confidence
- jules feifer
to email me, delete blackhole. from my return address
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2005, 01:10   #3 (permalink)
Stephen Henning
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Volvo AWD vs. Subaru AWD

"Tmuldoon" <tmuldoon@spliced.com> wrote:

> Are there any Volvo owner out there who also have a Subaru?
>
> I am seeking a decent AWD car for a good price, good reliability and
> always decent cost.


I had a Subaru Legacy LS and have a Volvo XC70. There is no comparison.
The Subaru was a nice driving car but spent a lot of time and my money
in the shop. I had to get rid of it at 110,000 miles because the rust
was so bad that it would not pass Pennsylvania State Inspection. It had
no resale value. The frame and brake system were so badly corroded they
were unsafe. I have driven 8 Volvos over 120,000 miles and never had
any of those problems. Other problems with the Subaru were:

The transmission/AWD unit replaced just before 100,000 miles.
The drivers door lock mechanism fell apart locking me in the car.
The air conditioner compressor fell apart and had to be repaired.
The drivers sun visor wouldn't stay up and had to be replaced.
The air shocks leaked and were replace with mechanical shocks.
The tail gate rusted out and had to be replaced.
The sun roof leaked.
The axle bearings wore out and had to be replaced.
I took it to the Subaru dealer for all of these problems and all were
fixed. The corrosion of the frame and brakes were not repairable.

On the other hand the Volvo XC70 has had no problems and holds its value
very well.
--
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '02 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '02 through European Delivery.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2005, 01:10   #4 (permalink)
Stephen Henning
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Volvo AWD vs. Subaru AWD

awouk@blackhole.nyx.net (arthur wouk) wrote:

> gas mileage was
> at most 20 even on the highway


That is one detail I forgot too mention. The gas mileage is better on
the Volvo XC70 than it was on the much smaller Subary Legacy LS. The
cost of ownership for the Subary was much higher than my XC70 since the
maintenance, fuel and depreciations costs were all much higher.
--
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '02 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '02 through European Delivery.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2005, 01:10   #5 (permalink)
~^ beancounter ~^
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Volvo AWD vs. Subaru AWD

asian metals and mfg vs. european.......

imho european is better, stronger...although a bit
more $$...

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2005, 01:10   #6 (permalink)
SkipperDoug
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Volvo AWD vs. Subaru AWD

Consumers Reports rates the Subaru ahead of the Volvo in reliability in more
recent models. Locally, replacing the AWD differential assembly seems a
common problem, even on fairly low mileage Volvo AWDs - the part costs
$2500CDN, I'm told. I have an 850 Turbo with Hakkapelita studded snows.
The studs are not legal yet here, but the difference in performance is
almost unreal. I doubt I would ever have need of the AWD, even in our snowy
area of Northern Ontario.
"~^ beancounter ~^" <richbonilla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110907732.641564.217860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> asian metals and mfg vs. european.......
>
> imho european is better, stronger...although a bit
> more $$...
>



  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2005, 01:11   #7 (permalink)
~^ beancounter ~^
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Volvo AWD vs. Subaru AWD

i am not sure about "Consumers Reports"
and their ratings.......some of the results seem
pretty flakey...sometimes.....

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2005, 01:11   #8 (permalink)
Benjamin Smith
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Volvo AWD vs. Subaru AWD

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:

> i am not sure about "Consumers Reports"
> and their ratings.......some of the results seem
> pretty flakey...sometimes.....
>


CR does not seem to like Volvos, for whatever reason.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2005, 01:11   #9 (permalink)
Stephen Henning
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Volvo AWD vs. Subaru AWD

Benjamin Smith <benjs@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> CR does not seem to like Volvos, for whatever reason.


That generalization is wrong. CR loves the 1999 and 2000 V70.

CR also has reported good reliability from the:

VOLVO 240 '91 & '92
VOLVO 940 '94 & '95
VOLVO 850 '95 - '97
VOLVO S40/V40 '01 & '02
VOLVO S60 '01 - '03
VOLVO V70 '03

CR readers haven't been impressed with the Volvo S80's reliability. Its
lack of reliability ranks among such less than stellar vehicles such as:

Audi A6
BMW & Series
Jaguar S-Type
Jaguar X-Type
Land Rover Discovery
Mercedes-Benz C-Class (V6)
Mercedes-Benz CLK
Mercedes-Benz M-Class
Mercedes-Benz S-Class
Volkswagen Golf
Volkswagen Jetta
Volkswagen New Beetle

These are some of the non-USA models that have consistently exhibited
less-than-average reliability in the 1997-2004 period. Volvo only has
one model on this list, the S80.

Now don't assume these vehicles are in the shop all the time.
Unreliable today means having more problems than a car that is very
reliable since most cars today are very reliable. Problems with the
engine, engine cooling, transmission, and drive system were weighted
more heavily than other problems. A 10% defect rate per year is above
average today and a 15% defect rate per year is among the worst. So if
a car has one serious defect in 6 years it is very unreliable. If that
is typical for the model, then the model is considered very unreliable.

By the way, the Subaru Legacy is considered a better-than-average model
and my experience with a '90 Legacy was the worst of any car I owned
except a '58 Mercury. However in the 1997 to 2005 time period, the
Legacy has redeemed itself as has the Mercury Grand Marquis.
--
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '02 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '02 through European Delivery.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2005, 01:11   #10 (permalink)
Rob Guenther
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Volvo AWD vs. Subaru AWD

The biggest problem is when there is a consistent problem with almost every
car - it might not be detrimental to the operation, but so many have the
problem that the car gets a bad rating... Take for example those VWs (I
know, I have two... so I'm speaking from experience with owning a CR's worst
pick.... they rate our 960 badly too... but it's been the best car we've
had)... They are all the same car, basically... They have plastic window
clips, poor quality MAF sensors, and bad ignition coils (well they did...
it's all been upgraded now)... Three problems, all three cars have these
issues (MAF on the diesels, coils on the 1,8L gas engines)... These cars
have all been fixed, but it's too late - bad wrap by CR - amount of time in
the shop for these cars... a day for each problem.

The other cars, S80 included are probably too technically complex for their
own good... their engines/trannys are most likely perfect, but their German
built (ie - overcomplicated, and they know it) electrical systems cause
problems... I won't get into the Jags... I've heard Jags are notorious for
"issues" same goes with the Land Rover, everyone knows they are troublesome.


"Stephen Henning" <pighash@aol.com> wrote in message
news:pighash-8AB880.08334419032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> Benjamin Smith <benjs@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> CR does not seem to like Volvos, for whatever reason.

>
> That generalization is wrong. CR loves the 1999 and 2000 V70.
>
> CR also has reported good reliability from the:
>
> VOLVO 240 '91 & '92
> VOLVO 940 '94 & '95
> VOLVO 850 '95 - '97
> VOLVO S40/V40 '01 & '02
> VOLVO S60 '01 - '03
> VOLVO V70 '03
>
> CR readers haven't been impressed with the Volvo S80's reliability. Its
> lack of reliability ranks among such less than stellar vehicles such as:
>
> Audi A6
> BMW & Series
> Jaguar S-Type
> Jaguar X-Type
> Land Rover Discovery
> Mercedes-Benz C-Class (V6)
> Mercedes-Benz CLK
> Mercedes-Benz M-Class
> Mercedes-Benz S-Class
> Volkswagen Golf
> Volkswagen Jetta
> Volkswagen New Beetle
>
> These are some of the non-USA models that have consistently exhibited
> less-than-average reliability in the 1997-2004 period. Volvo only has
> one model on this list, the S80.
>
> Now don't assume these vehicles are in the shop all the time.
> Unreliable today means having more problems than a car that is very
> reliable since most cars today are very reliable. Problems with the
> engine, engine cooling, transmission, and drive system were weighted
> more heavily than other problems. A 10% defect rate per year is above
> average today and a 15% defect rate per year is among the worst. So if
> a car has one serious defect in 6 years it is very unreliable. If that
> is typical for the model, then the model is considered very unreliable.
>
> By the way, the Subaru Legacy is considered a better-than-average model
> and my experience with a '90 Legacy was the worst of any car I owned
> except a '58 Mercury. However in the 1997 to 2005 time period, the
> Legacy has redeemed itself as has the Mercury Grand Marquis.
> --
> Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
> Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '02 Volvos.
> The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '02 through European Delivery.
> http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html



  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Ford Cars and PAG Vehicles > PAG Vehicle Discussion > Volvo



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 16:32.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.