Volvo sold to China
Geoff Pearson
visible change to a successful range? I am due to change my V50 next year -
will it be the last?
Joerg Lorenz
> What does this mean for the Volvo marque - a change to Chinese tastes or no
> visible change to a successful range? I am due to change my V50 next year -
> will it be the last?
>
Volvos since 1992. My current C70 Cabriolet will be the last.
I'll never buy a European brand from these yellow bastards. Full stop!
--
http://www.albasani.net/index.html.de
Ein freier und kostenloser Server f�r Usenet/NetNews (NNTP)
JimG
I have had 5 Volvos over the years and was very satisfied with each
purchase.
"Geoff Pearson" <gspear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7pf0vk...@mid.individual.net...
Peter Huebner
says...
>
> will it be the last?
Heh, that was my reaction when Ford took over Volvo already. I was
wondering at the time how long it would be until Ford would start
rebadging Mazdas as Volvos ... looking at some of the stupid moves they
made (i.m.o.)(like putting that petrol guzzling 3.2 l engine into the xc
70) I was close to abandoning Volvo in the first place.
I dunno. I'm thinking if I should upgrade our '02 XC70 to a more recent
diesel model _now_ ('06 or '07), or wait until the 2010s come up second
hand in 3-4 years' time. But that will probably be the last Volvo we buy
... assuming that the Chinese will even bother to maintain customer
support reliably in this part of the world (NZ).
Any opinions on that upgrade?
We'll probably keep driving our 850 wagon until it drops dead in any
event.
Then again - if they leave Volvo in Sweden and Belgium alone and just
leech technology, then that may not be an entirely bad thing.
[somewhat worried] -P.
som...@somewhere.com
better then the turbo 5 on my previous 2005 XC70
I average @ 22.5 mpg and suffer from a heavy right foot
I am sure it would be better if I could keep it below 75 mph
This is not bad for an over 2 ton all wheel drive
Diesel models are not available here in the U.S.
John
Peter Huebner
som...@somewhere.com says...
>
> Believe it or not the gas mileage on my 2008 XC70 3.2 is slightly
> better then the turbo 5 on my previous 2005 XC70
>
> I average @ 22.5 mpg and suffer from a heavy right foot
>
> I am sure it would be better if I could keep it below 75 mph
>
> This is not bad for an over 2 ton all wheel drive
>
> Diesel models are not available here in the U.S.
>
> John
Interesting. I have some difficulty converting - since I am not sure if
you're using US gallons or UK gallons there ... assuming US gallons that
would convert to 10.45 litre/100km -- quite reasonable I think. If
converting from 22.5 UK mpg it would be 12.55 l/100km - and that's high
in my book. Petrol is expensive here.
Both our current cars are petrol powered. I can tell you that my '02
xc70 with a 2.5 litre turbo engine uses about 9.6 l on 100km, and that's
on very hilly country and some gravel roads, both of which push fuel
consumption up. (by comparison, the 850 with a 2.0 turbo engine uses
10.5 litres/100 km on the same roads but only 8.6 on flat country
sealed highways - I haven't had the opportunity to test our xc70 on a
long trip in flat country).
The 3.2 litre engine is quoted by two instances, automobile association
and a 'fuelsaver' website here in NZ as using 11.6 and 11.8 l of petrol
per 100km, that's around 20% more than I am currently using. Which has
made me very disinclined to get one of those cars.
Go figure. Obviously your results are better than theirs (calculating
for US gallons, anyway).
-P.
JimG
getting in my previous 1995 850 (wagon, non-turbo). I think the V70 does a
better job fuel-wise as the 850 had 168 hp and the V70 is rated at 225 hp
and the V70 does have a lot more pick-up. I also have a heavy foot and,
when I first got the car, I had to be careful so that I wouldn't chirp the
wheels when starting from stop. I do notice that the mpg does vary greatly
between "around town" (18 mpg) and highway (25+ mpg) driving. I suspect the
ability to get into, and stay in, 6th gear on the highway makes a BIG
difference.
"Peter Huebner" <no....@this.address> wrote in message
news:MPG.259e289f4...@news.individual.net...
Tim McNamara
"JimG" <newsg...@abetterplacetobe.com> wrote:
> "Peter Huebner" <no....@this.address> wrote in message
> news:MPG.259e289f4...@news.individual.net...
> > In article <r2k6j551jpliuag0o...@4ax.com>,
> > som...@somewhere.com says...
> >>
> >> Believe it or not the gas mileage on my 2008 XC70 3.2 is slightly
> >> better then the turbo 5 on my previous 2005 XC70
> >>
> >> I average @ 22.5 mpg and suffer from a heavy right foot
> >>
> >> I am sure it would be better if I could keep it below 75 mph
> >>
> >> This is not bad for an over 2 ton all wheel drive
> >>
> >> Diesel models are not available here in the U.S.
> >
> > Interesting. I have some difficulty converting - since I am not
> > sure if you're using US gallons or UK gallons there ... assuming US
> > gallons that would convert to 10.45 litre/100km -- quite reasonable
> > I think. If converting from 22.5 UK mpg it would be 12.55 l/100km -
> > and that's high in my book. Petrol is expensive here.
> >
> > Both our current cars are petrol powered. I can tell you that my
> > '02 xc70 with a 2.5 litre turbo engine uses about 9.6 l on 100km,
> > and that's on very hilly country and some gravel roads, both of
> > which push fuel consumption up. (by comparison, the 850 with a 2.0
> > turbo engine uses 10.5 litres/100 km on the same roads but only 8.6
> > on flat country sealed highways - I haven't had the opportunity to
> > test our xc70 on a long trip in flat country).
> >
> > The 3.2 litre engine is quoted by two instances, automobile
> > association and a 'fuelsaver' website here in NZ as using 11.6 and
> > 11.8 l of petrol per 100km, that's around 20% more than I am
> > currently using. Which has made me very disinclined to get one of
> > those cars.
> >
> > Go figure. Obviously your results are better than theirs
> > (calculating for US gallons, anyway).
> >
> >
> I drive a 2008 V70. I average about 22 mpg (US) which is about what
> I was getting in my previous 1995 850 (wagon, non-turbo). I think
> the V70 does a better job fuel-wise as the 850 had 168 hp and the V70
> is rated at 225 hp and the V70 does have a lot more pick-up. I also
> have a heavy foot and, when I first got the car, I had to be careful
> so that I wouldn't chirp the wheels when starting from stop. I do
> notice that the mpg does vary greatly between "around town" (18 mpg)
> and highway (25+ mpg) driving. I suspect the ability to get into,
> and stay in, 6th gear on the highway makes a BIG difference.
Accelerating takes a lot of energy, more than maintaining a constant
speed, so the stop-and-start driving of towns and cities tends to result
in poorer mileage. My 1990 240 gets 25 mpg (US gallons) in the highway
and about 20 mpg in town. I average about 23 mpg in mixed driving.
Cruise control makes a difference of about 2 mpg in highway driving.
Vanja
"Joerg Lorenz" <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote in message
news:hgtuq4$r04$1...@news.albasani.net...
franz47
"Peter Huebner" <no....@this.address> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:MPG.259e1604c...@news.individual.net...
> We'll probably keep driving our 850 wagon until it drops dead in any
> event.
That sounds wise regardless of Volvo�s future owners� country!
Franz47
Randy G.
>..... My 1990 240 gets 25 mpg (US gallons) in the highway
>Cruise control makes a difference of about 2 mpg in highway driving.
I have done a number of odometer checks against highway markers so
have a correction figure for the miles traveled, so feel I can safely
state that my MPG figures are fairly accurate. 1990 245 5 speed manual
- mixed driving (up and down hills and mountain passes, freeway, etc.)
I get +/- 24.5 mpg. On long, flat, freeway trips, I have gotten
nearly 28 mpg doing 70-80 mph. That's about 8.4L/100Km at that
speed... There is a calculator here:
http://www.vangeyn.net/mpg/
I love that car!
__ __
Randy & \ \/ /alerie's
\__/olvos
'90 245 Estate - '93 965 Estate
"Shelby" & "Kate"
Tim McNamara
Randy G. <fr...@DESPAMMOcncnet.com> wrote:
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >..... My 1990 240 gets 25 mpg (US gallons) in the highway
> >and about 20 mpg in town. I average about 23 mpg in mixed driving.
> >Cruise control makes a difference of about 2 mpg in highway driving.
>
> I have done a number of odometer checks against highway markers so
> have a correction figure for the miles traveled, so feel I can safely
> state that my MPG figures are fairly accurate. 1990 245 5 speed manual
> - mixed driving (up and down hills and mountain passes, freeway, etc.)
> I get +/- 24.5 mpg. On long, flat, freeway trips, I have gotten
> nearly 28 mpg doing 70-80 mph. That's about 8.4L/100Km at that
> speed... There is a calculator here:
> http://www.vangeyn.net/mpg/
>
> I love that car!
240s are just wonderful vehicles. I drove from St. Paul MN to Chicago
yesterday (410 miles) and obtained 26 mpg driving 65-70 mph most of the
way. Not too bad for a nearly 20 year old big heavy car.
James Sweet
>
> I have done a number of odometer checks against highway markers so
> have a correction figure for the miles traveled, so feel I can safely
> state that my MPG figures are fairly accurate. 1990 245 5 speed manual
> - mixed driving (up and down hills and mountain passes, freeway, etc.)
> I get +/- 24.5 mpg. On long, flat, freeway trips, I have gotten
> nearly 28 mpg doing 70-80 mph. That's about 8.4L/100Km at that
> speed... There is a calculator here:
> http://www.vangeyn.net/mpg/
>
> I love that car!
> __ __
> Randy & \ \/ /alerie's
> \__/olvos
> '90 245 Estate - '93 965 Estate
> "Shelby" & "Kate"
My mom has squeaked past 30 mpg in her '86 245, but she normally drives
a bit slower and that's on relatively flat highway trips. I suspect I
could bump it up a bit further even if I swapped the rear end ratio, it
was originally automatic before I changed it to the M47 5 speed so it
still has the shorter rear end gears. Great car though, bought new in
'86 and still driving it.
Tony
Volvo has been trading on its name for safety and reliability built on
the expensive 200/700/900 specified to last 20 years. The FWD cars are
not really in that league and closer to Fords and Vauxhauls with a bit
more spent on aesthetics.
I doubt anything will change with the Chinese owners, other than a
slight more slide towards aesthetics over reliability. It is what
'people' want, long lasting cars were a complete failure as a business.
--
Tony