Safest SUV type for $45k...I say Volvo? (brake, MPG, race car)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Subaru's were going to be our second choice. But after test driving both the sub's and the Volvo's, we preferred the Volvo's because they felt more comfortable and handled better and had more room/storage. Plus after watching many hours of various crash tests we were much more impressed with how the Volvo's did than how the Sub's did.
One word about Volvo's, though - stay away from anything with "turbo" and do not buy a Volvo which was produced during the years that Ford owned Volvo. Those were icky years and they didn't use the true chassis - they subbed the Ford chassis. That was about the time that the whole "other cars have caught up with Volvo in terms of safety" thing started coming up. Thankfully, Ford doesn't own Volvo anymore, and the people who do have gone back to the original way of designing and manufacturing them. (Ironically - the Chinese! Go figure?) For now, anyway...
[quote]The fact of the matter is that Volvo is not longer top dog for safety, and has formally relinquished the title to Subaru. Volvo's Chinese ownership does not instill confidence. [\quote]
Formally relinquished the title to Subaru? No. The fact is that Volvos have received top scores across the board from both NHTSA and IIHS, and Subarus have not. One would have to suspend reality or be legally blind in order to believe otherwise. The evidence is right there in the links I provided.
The fact of the matter is that Volvo is not longer top dog for safety, and has formally relinquished the title to Subaru. Volvo's Chinese ownership does not instill confidence. [\quote]
Formally relinquished the title to Subaru? No. The fact is that Volvos have received top scores across the board from both NHTSA and IIHS. Subarus have not. One would have to suspend reality in order to believe otherwise. The evidence is right there online in the links I provided.
Carry on.
Carry on? Give it a rest kid.
Volvos title was relinquished when the sold out to a Chinese company. You know China, the king of cost cutting and leaders in lowest common denominator manufacturing. A little Melamine in dog food, baby formula to dilute the active ingredients. Game over, full stop.
I'd also put little credence in nhtsa results. This is the same organization that panders to big auto rather than recall vehicles even after the loss of life and overwhelming evidence. Its also well established that the rigors of nhtsa crash tests pale in comparison to iihs. Subaru has more tps+ cars than Volvo. In fact all Subaru's have received tsp or tsp+ status. Volvos on the other hand have not.
Also the lack of awd across volvos lineup is disappointing.
But thanks for playing
I also apprciated equating being blind to unintelligent and illiterate. Classy touch.
I have no reservations about recommending the XC90. It's a solid vehicle. I have been assigned from the family motor pool, or owned Volvos from every platform including, and since the 240. Until recently, I had 2 Volvos; now only one. And it has been an excellent car.
Having said that, I agree with the suggestion to check Subaru. Both the Outback and Forester have ground clearance equal to the XC90, and they are much cheaper. If you don't need the third row, your options grow quite a bit. Subarus are at the top of their classes with respect to crashing.
Hate to pick on you Volvo People, so don't take it personal.
I've read all these post touting Volvos Safety, and its true Volvo does still make a Very safe car. I have not read a post yet about Volvo's Reliability or low Cost of Maintenance.
Volvo's are safe and pretty cars But are notorious for their, poor Reliability and high cost of maintenance.
If you know that going in and can afford the maintenance and problems that may arise with owning a Volvo, go for it!
I would like to hear some positive, 100k miles with little to no maintenance/repairs stories on 2000-2011 Volvos
I have a 2012 Tahoe with about 60k Miles (we drive to the bay area a lot) and except for brakes, the truck has been Bullet Proof.
Ford Explorer
Chevy Tahoe
Acura RDX
Lexus RX GX
Hell, i would even pick the Hyundai Tucson/ Kia Sportage over the Volvo XC70/XC90
As for reliability, Consumer Reports rates the '13 xc60 as better than average. Speaking of reliability, you would think a company that's been around for over 100 years would have the engineering prowess to deploy airbags and ignition switches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve
NHTSA tests are much less rigorous relative to the IIHS tests. IIHS has the moderate and small overlap frontal tests which are still not incorporated in the NHTSA tests. The IIHS side impact crash simulates a large SUV in terms of height and weight, while the NHTSA simulates a small compact car.
The fact of the matter is that Volvo is not longer top dog for safety, and has formally relinquished the title to Subaru. Volvo's Chinese ownership does not instill confidence.
Volvo has more models than Subaru, yet has fewer TSP+ (or TSP) awards.
The Forester has a Good rating for every category for every years.
Structure
The driver space was maintained well, with maximum intrusion of the lower interior of 10 cm and maximum intrusion of the upper interior of 5 cm.
Vs. Volvo XC60--- intrusion is a bit higher despite a porkish 800lb weight increase relative to the Forester (similar lengths though). The Volvo does receive a Good for every category for every year, but a much shorter history. The Forester was the first vehicle to ever ace the small overlap test.
As for reliability, Consumer Reports rates the '13 xc60 as better than average. Speaking of reliability, you would think a company that's been around for over 100 years would have the engineering prowess to deploy airbags and ignition switches.
"The driver space was maintained well, with maximum intrusion of the both the lower and upper interior at 6 cm."
Both are IIHS 2014 Top Safety Pick+.
You didn't fully read my post.
Between the years of 2000-2011 Volvo Made some terrible cars, Safe but not very reliable.
Now if you want to talk about older Volvos then yes, some of the older Volvos were the most reliable cars on the planet.
My step dad owns a 1979 Volvo 240 with about 400k miles and the original motor and transmission.
Those days of reliability are long, long gone with Volvo. But if you want a safe vehicle that is prone to leave you stranded on the side of the road, have at it.
Hate to pick on you Volvo People, so don't take it personal.
I've read all these post touting Volvos Safety, and its true Volvo does still make a Very safe car. I have not read a post yet about Volvo's Reliability or low Cost of Maintenance.
Volvo's are safe and pretty cars But are notorious for their, poor Reliability and high cost of maintenance.
If you know that going in and can afford the maintenance and problems that may arise with owning a Volvo, go for it!
I would like to hear some positive, 100k miles with little to no maintenance/repairs stories on 2000-2011 Volvos
I have a 2012 Tahoe with about 60k Miles (we drive to the bay area a lot) and except for brakes, the truck has been Bullet Proof.
Ford Explorer
Chevy Tahoe
Acura RDX
Lexus RX GX
Hell, i would even pick the Hyundai Tucson/ Kia Sportage over the Volvo XC70/XC90
I have a 2005 Tahoe, 92K miles. Live in the northeast and do a lot of driving back and forth between Vermont and Long Island. It has been exposed to salted roads, Icy roads, packed snow,serious mud roads, and salty air on LI. It has been driven cross country and through the desert areas of Utah, AZ, & NM for a summer month, and then onto the mountains in CO. It is not garaged.
I have had little issues -- tire gauge sensor, some sort of a breather in the exhaust ($37), and one issue with a sensor in the transfer case at around 80K, which wasn't as costly as I had feared. My brakes have been replaced as part of normal wear and tear.
At a party last month I was speaking with a person who owns a 2004 Tahoe with 160K miles. Also, minimal issues. We both went on about how much we like the cars, and despite how everyone around us has new cars, we are hanging onto our Tahoes which have served us well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
