Subaru Legacy vs. Volvo X60 Momentum - Page 2
Username
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
    Results 36 to 55 of 55
    1. #36
      Junior Member genesmasher's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2013
      Location
      San Diego
      Posts
      708
      Quote Originally Posted by iceman2222 View Post
      Right, our Forester Limited is only six months old. My wife loves the car, but we decided why have two Subarus? For long distance driving, like up to the mountains in Tennessee, we will use the Subaru. For commuting, I will drive the Volvo. I always wanted to own a Volvo. It just has that little element of quirkiness and there are far fewer of them on the roads than BMWs, and besides, I have owned two BMWs. I had no choice but to get another car. My 2011 BMW with "only" 92 thousand miles, bought new, was leaking oil, needed a new radiator and hose belts, the engine light was on with the code indicating issues with the catalytic converter, and needed a brake job. My mechanic told me that he could try to fix the oil leak but he could not tell me how deep the problem. At the least I likely needed a new head gasket. I could barely get the car to the local dealer to trade it in. Given all the issues, they still gave me 4200 in trade in with my disclosing the problems, and I know it will need several thousand dollars of work at least, so I was happy.
      I seem to go through the same thought process every couple of years. Why buy another Volvo, when there are so many other quality brands around? And yet eventually I always arrive at the conclusion that Volvo has all the features, build quality and performance I need, while also being a better value for the money than the alternatives. After owning a number of BMW, Lexus, Audi and Infiniti, this company got me in a grip and won't let go, LOL.
      2019 S60 T6 R-design Polestar / Fusion Red / Black
      2018 XC60 T8 AWD Inscription Vision Lux Air / Fusion Red / Black
      past:
      2018 S60 T5 Dynamic Sport Vision Nav / Onyx Black / Black
      2015.5 XC60 T6 AWD Platinum Sport BLIS / Power Blue / Blond|Black
      2014 S60 T5 Prem Plus Sport BLIS Xenons / Ember Black / Beechwood

    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. #37
      Quote Originally Posted by iceman2222 View Post
      I have always bought New and tended to keep my cars for a long time. This was the first time in my life I have leased a car. Numbers wise, if I end up buying the car at the end of the lease, the total cost of the car will be close to if I had purchased it outright, maybe a few thousand more, but leasing gives me options. If the car is worth significantly less than the residual value, I walk or renegotiate the buyout price. Or maybe I just want out of the car so I turn in the keys. I also expect that in a few years, electric or hybrid cars will be very significant in the market, and the internal combustion engine cars will be less popular, driving market value down even more than typical for a Volvo...so time will tell. The problem with leasing, if the car is totaled, I lose the upfront payments, or if it is significantly damaged in an accident but repaired, I may not have a claim for diminished value, so will end up driving a "damaged but repaired" car until the end of the lease unless I pay the early termination charges.
      You make good points. Leasing is like being in a perpetual rental car. Any damage falls back on you and/or your insurance. With so many road hazards and dumb dumbs on the road, all it takes is one instance to create a costly repair bill. Offsetting any potential savings. On the flip side, if the car gets damaged, you aren't stuck keeping it!

    4. #38
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2019
      Location
      Wayland, MA
      Posts
      227
      Quote Originally Posted by iceman2222 View Post
      I have always bought New and tended to keep my cars for a long time. This was the first time in my life I have leased a car. Numbers wise, if I end up buying the car at the end of the lease, the total cost of the car will be close to if I had purchased it outright, maybe a few thousand more, but leasing gives me options. If the car is worth significantly less than the residual value, I walk or renegotiate the buyout price. Or maybe I just want out of the car so I turn in the keys. I also expect that in a few years, electric or hybrid cars will be very significant in the market, and the internal combustion engine cars will be less popular, driving market value down even more than typical for a Volvo...so time will tell. The problem with leasing, if the car is totaled, I lose the upfront payments, or if it is significantly damaged in an accident but repaired, I may not have a claim for diminished value, so will end up driving a "damaged but repaired" car until the end of the lease unless I pay the early termination charges.
      Upfront payments are not recommended when you lease, even if you have the money! That way if the car is totaled you are only out payments to date on the car and you walk away. You will never have "diminished value" with a lease, it doesn't exist the residual is fixed when you lease it, if there was damage as long as it is repaired to a reasonable standard which insurance would handle of course, the bank owns that car and any loss of value is on them. If you knew the car was cracked up it's your choice to decide to purchase it at the end of the lease. BTW you can't negotiate the buyout, that is fixed too, however if it were worth considerably more than the buyout, you could buy and then resell the car. If you take it to a Carmax they will even handle the buyout for you and cut you a check for the difference.

      You're right about the price being close to buying, if you figure a 3 year lease residual is typically around 50% you are basically similar to financing over 6 years with a chance to get out of it at 3 years in, if all is well you buy it out, otherwise turn it in! Lease rates are often lower than prevailing financing interest rates so it can come out about the same when you add back in the lease bank fee and turn-in fees.

      You may know all that, there just seems to be a bit of misinformation about leasing maybe this is helpful to others.

    5. Remove Advertisements
      SwedeSpeed.com
      Advertisements
       

    6. #39
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Apr 2014
      Location
      North NJ
      Posts
      273
      Quote Originally Posted by Power6 View Post
      Upfront payments are not recommended when you lease, even if you have the money! That way if the car is totaled you are only out payments to date on the car and you walk away. You will never have "diminished value" with a lease, it doesn't exist the residual is fixed when you lease it, if there was damage as long as it is repaired to a reasonable standard which insurance would handle of course, the bank owns that car and any loss of value is on them. If you knew the car was cracked up it's your choice to decide to purchase it at the end of the lease. BTW you can't negotiate the buyout, that is fixed too, however if it were worth considerably more than the buyout, you could buy and then resell the car. If you take it to a Carmax they will even handle the buyout for you and cut you a check for the difference.

      You're right about the price being close to buying, if you figure a 3 year lease residual is typically around 50% you are basically similar to financing over 6 years with a chance to get out of it at 3 years in, if all is well you buy it out, otherwise turn it in! Lease rates are often lower than prevailing financing interest rates so it can come out about the same when you add back in the lease bank fee and turn-in fees.

      You may know all that, there just seems to be a bit of misinformation about leasing maybe this is helpful to others.
      All good points. A lot of people seem to think leasing vs. financing is some binary choice. Financing is not for everyone, and neither is leasing. It all depends on your lifestyle.

      Some people like to keep their cars for 10 years, which is a perfectly respectable choice. In that case, leasing obviously makes little sense. Some people like a new car every 3 years, which is what I prefer.
      2019 Volvo S60 T6 R-Design AWD (Fusion Red Metallic) w. Advanced Package, Bowers and Wilkins, Heated Rear Seats and Steering Wheel, Polestar, Exterior Styling Kit, Sport Chassis, and 19" 5-Spoke Matte Black Alloy Wheels

      2018 Mercedes-Benz GLC 300 4MATIC AMG Line

      Past: 2017 Volvo S90 T6 Momentum AWD, 2015.5 Volvo S60 T5 AWD Platinum, 2015 S60 T5 FWD Platinum

    7. #40
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2007
      Location
      Eastern MA
      Posts
      110
      Quote Originally Posted by ap17 View Post
      I was cross-shopping the newest Subaru Outback Touring XT with the V60 Cross-country (test drove both) and am coming from the previous generation Outback.

      Advantages Subaru: More spacious inside, both for passengers and luggage, you can feel the difference; about 6k cheaper* similarly equipped; no need for premium gas; windows seemed larger; resale value

      Advantages Volvo: Significantly better handling and driving experience; more comfortable seats; panoramic sunroof; much better speakers; safer; more beautiful inside and out

      So you lose some space and money in exchange for an overall more pleasant driving experience in all facets (driving, comfort, entertainment, aesthetics) and improved safety (though both brands are very safe cars).
      I agree with most of what you said, but why do you give the advantage to Volvo for safety? In the European safety tests, where they assign scores, not just categories, the current Outback has not been tested, but the current Forester outscores the current V60 in every category. And in the US IIHS testing the Forester headlights are better. I agree that both are very safe cars, and I am comfortable in term of safety with either one, but I don't think the data supports declaring an advantage for Volvo in safety - at least assuming that the current Outback is similar to the Forester with regard to safety.

    8. #41
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2019
      Location
      Wayland, MA
      Posts
      227
      Quote Originally Posted by waterdog View Post
      I don't think the data supports declaring an advantage for Volvo in safety - at least assuming that the current Outback is similar to the Forester with regard to safety.
      You can go down a rat hole with the safety ratings! For example the Euro NCAP ratings, while higher for the Forester (well not for the rear passengers) are not supposed to be comparable between "classes" because I guess the bigger the car, the bigger the stuff they crash into it, the Volvo is a "large family car" and the Forester a "small off-roader" whatever that means. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_N...g_test_results)

      Also interesting the V60 while "not comparable" scores lower than the Forester in front seat but the tested car did not have a knee airbag, all the US cars get a knee airbag I am pretty sure? (My S60 has one). It also loses in pedestrian protection but if I am being honest that might be the score I am not as concerned about...

      Volvo has a history of not "teaching to the test" but prioritizing safety even when there is not a "score" at stake. In fact the offset frontal impact was pioneered by Volvo before any of the safety orgs was testing for it. How much of an advantage is left when every car is pretty safe, who knows. I guess you either take it on faith or don't. But splitting hairs over a 97 or a 96 probably doesn't tell much of a useful story either.

    9. #42
      Junior Member Kamil's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2019
      Posts
      592
      Quote Originally Posted by Power6 View Post
      You can go down a rat hole with the safety ratings! For example the Euro NCAP ratings, while higher for the Forester (well not for the rear passengers) are not supposed to be comparable between "classes" because I guess the bigger the car, the bigger the stuff they crash into it, the Volvo is a "large family car" and the Forester a "small off-roader" whatever that means. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_N...g_test_results)

      Also interesting the V60 while "not comparable" scores lower than the Forester in front seat but the tested car did not have a knee airbag, all the US cars get a knee airbag I am pretty sure? (My S60 has one). It also loses in pedestrian protection but if I am being honest that might be the score I am not as concerned about...

      Volvo has a history of not "teaching to the test" but prioritizing safety even when there is not a "score" at stake. In fact the offset frontal impact was pioneered by Volvo before any of the safety orgs was testing for it. How much of an advantage is left when every car is pretty safe, who knows. I guess you either take it on faith or don't. But splitting hairs over a 97 or a 96 probably doesn't tell much of a useful story either.
      I agree,

      In the end regardless of a test I would trust Volvo currently over any other product on the street.
      2020 V60 CC

    10. #43
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2007
      Location
      Eastern MA
      Posts
      110
      Quote Originally Posted by Power6 View Post
      You can go down a rat hole with the safety ratings! For example the Euro NCAP ratings, while higher for the Forester (well not for the rear passengers) are not supposed to be comparable between "classes" because I guess the bigger the car, the bigger the stuff they crash into it, the Volvo is a "large family car" and the Forester a "small off-roader" whatever that means. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_N...g_test_results)

      Also interesting the V60 while "not comparable" scores lower than the Forester in front seat but the tested car did not have a knee airbag, all the US cars get a knee airbag I am pretty sure? (My S60 has one). It also loses in pedestrian protection but if I am being honest that might be the score I am not as concerned about...

      Volvo has a history of not "teaching to the test" but prioritizing safety even when there is not a "score" at stake. In fact the offset frontal impact was pioneered by Volvo before any of the safety orgs was testing for it. How much of an advantage is left when every car is pretty safe, who knows. I guess you either take it on faith or don't. But splitting hairs over a 97 or a 96 probably doesn't tell much of a useful story either.
      My point was not to split hairs on a 96 or 97, but to point out what has been clearly stated above - and that is that a declaration that a current model Volvo is "safer" than a current model Subaru is a matter of faith, not of data. Both companies seem to take safety pretty seriously. Volvo has been doing it for longer than Subaru, but both do it pretty well now.

      I'm not a hater or troll. Volvo has been my brand of choice for decades. I don't own a Volvo now because I just sold my most recent Volvo to my son (which is pretty strong statement that I feel it is a very safe car) but when Polestar puts out an all-electric car with over 300 miles range I hope to get back into a Volvo.

      For now, however, my bigger need is to get to a landing with a kayak on top and lots of gear and/or dogs in the back, or to a mountain with skis, and I feel very comfortable doing those things in my 2020 Forester Touring. I realize I could also do those things in a V60 cross country. For me, the better headlights, oil filter in the engine bay, and the larger cargo space of the Forester tipped my choice - as much as I loved many things about the Volvo, including the seats, handling, sound system, gorgeous interior, general build quality, and my expectation that in 15 years it would not have a speck of rust. I did not consider the Outback seriously because of the awful roof rack system (awful for my needs, maybe good for some) Subaru chooses to put on the Outback.

    11. #44
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Mar 2018
      Location
      Connecticut
      Posts
      157
      Quote Originally Posted by waterdog View Post
      My point was not to split hairs on a 96 or 97, but to point out what has been clearly stated above - and that is that a declaration that a current model Volvo is "safer" than a current model Subaru is a matter of faith, not of data. Both companies seem to take safety pretty seriously. Volvo has been doing it for longer than Subaru, but both do it pretty well now.

      I'm not a hater or troll. Volvo has been my brand of choice for decades. I don't own a Volvo now because I just sold my most recent Volvo to my son (which is pretty strong statement that I feel it is a very safe car) but when Polestar puts out an all-electric car with over 300 miles range I hope to get back into a Volvo.

      For now, however, my bigger need is to get to a landing with a kayak on top and lots of gear and/or dogs in the back, or to a mountain with skis, and I feel very comfortable doing those things in my 2020 Forester Touring. I realize I could also do those things in a V60 cross country. For me, the better headlights, oil filter in the engine bay, and the larger cargo space of the Forester tipped my choice - as much as I loved many things about the Volvo, including the seats, handling, sound system, gorgeous interior, general build quality, and my expectation that in 15 years it would not have a speck of rust. I did not consider the Outback seriously because of the awful roof rack system (awful for my needs, maybe good for some) Subaru chooses to put on the Outback.
      You made a very logical choice, based on your particular needs.

      As others indicated, the crash tests don't seem to match exactly. However Volvo's tests appear to be more comprehensive. Some time spent googling indicated that Volvo has been a pioneer in the use of ultra high strength steel and uses it more than Subaru. Volvo V60:

      https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/...TVI7LRAVGE.jpg

      https://www.media.volvocars.com/image/low/34511/1_1/5

      The SPA platform is around 40% ultra high strength steel (article is about the XC90, but it's the same platform so percentage is likely about the same):

      https://www.media.volvocars.com/glob...s-in-the-world

      In the Subaru Forester it is 13%:

      https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2...hops-to-watch/

      This all suggests that Volvo is probably a little safer, though both cars are very safe.
      Future: 2020 V60 CC Birch Light with Advanced Package and Bowers and Wilkins (OSD summer 2020)
      Current: Subaru Outback 2015, Limited

    12. #45
      I think ultimately, the lines between safety are beginning to blur. Most manufacturers are now putting safety as a forefront concern rather than a hindsight decision. So Volvo's leading edge of being the "safest" is diminished. However, Volvo has been "Very Safe" for a long time, and I trust my life in one without batting an eye.

    13. #46
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Sep 2019
      Posts
      112
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      I think ultimately, the lines between safety are beginning to blur. Most manufacturers are now putting safety as a forefront concern rather than a hindsight decision. So Volvo's leading edge of being the "safest" is diminished. However, Volvo has been "Very Safe" for a long time, and I trust my life in one without batting an eye.

      Very true. CNBC agrees with you: https://youtu.be/bfuDOkW12nE

      I was a bit surprised Volvo doesn't include blind spot monitoring, or rear cross traffic alert as standard on all models. I think new Mazda's and even new Hyundai's have these two safety systems as standard.

    14. #47
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2007
      Location
      Eastern MA
      Posts
      110
      Quote Originally Posted by ap17 View Post
      You made a very logical choice, based on your particular needs.

      As others indicated, the crash tests don't seem to match exactly. However Volvo's tests appear to be more comprehensive. Some time spent googling indicated that Volvo has been a pioneer in the use of ultra high strength steel and uses it more than Subaru. Volvo V60:

      https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/...TVI7LRAVGE.jpg

      https://www.media.volvocars.com/image/low/34511/1_1/5

      The SPA platform is around 40% ultra high strength steel (article is about the XC90, but it's the same platform so percentage is likely about the same):

      https://www.media.volvocars.com/glob...s-in-the-world

      In the Subaru Forester it is 13%:

      https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2...hops-to-watch/

      This all suggests that Volvo is probably a little safer, though both cars are very safe.
      For the Subaru, the headline says 13%, but the article says 56% high strength steel, so just by the numbers (assuming they are comparable numbers) the Subaru has more high strength steel than the Volvo.

      All this said, I have a lot of trust in the safety of Volvos - the only point I am trying to make is that at least when selecting between a new Volvo and a new Forester or Outback (not sure about the other Subaru models), I don't think there is a reasonable basis to claim that differences in safety should be a deciding factor. My original post on this topic was reacting to someone who suggested that greater safety in a Volvo was a factor in a decision.

    15. #48
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2019
      Location
      Wayland, MA
      Posts
      227
      Quote Originally Posted by waterdog View Post
      My point was not to split hairs on a 96 or 97, but to point out what has been clearly stated above - and that is that a declaration that a current model Volvo is "safer" than a current model Subaru is a matter of faith, not of data. Both companies seem to take safety pretty seriously. Volvo has been doing it for longer than Subaru, but both do it pretty well now.
      Don't disagree. Just consider that many automakers specifically engineer the safety that is needed to get a "top pick" by the IIHS or whatever local standard for their marketing dept to take safety off the table as a reason for the consumer to buy something else. Volvo has occasionally shown that they have their own set of higher standards even if the various rating orgs are not specifically testing an aspect they feel is important. That's hard to "know" but I can'f really fault someone who does think that way, there is some evidence for it. So I guess I'm just saying *your* assessment of the situation may not be more valid than someone elses, at some point it all goes through each of our irrational brains lol.

      Funny you mention headlights, when looking at the ratings for 2020 the number of IIHS "Top Safety Plus" picks went down from 2019. It looks like they changed their criteria from "good headlights must be available" to "acceptable headlights must be standard". A large number of "plus" picks say "*after December 2019" or similar because the mfrs scrambled to revise headlights or make good LEDs standard across the model. The S60/V60 missed out on the "plus" because the standard LEDs are marginal. Only the midyear updated curve adaptive headlights are now rated good. Looks like Subaru was able to eek out a good rating on the Forester with the standard fixed LED headlights and snag the plus. Personally I think IIHS is doing good work forcing mfrs to stop putting crappy headlights in cars!

    16. #49
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Mar 2018
      Location
      Connecticut
      Posts
      157
      Quote Originally Posted by waterdog View Post
      For the Subaru, the headline says 13%, but the article says 56% high strength steel, so just by the numbers (assuming they are comparable numbers) the Subaru has more high strength steel than the Volvo.

      All this said, I have a lot of trust in the safety of Volvos - the only point I am trying to make is that at least when selecting between a new Volvo and a new Forester or Outback (not sure about the other Subaru models), I don't think there is a reasonable basis to claim that differences in safety should be a deciding factor. My original post on this topic was reacting to someone who suggested that greater safety in a Volvo was a factor in a decision.
      I hate to be pedantic, but the article lists three types of ultra high strength steels whose total on the Subaru comes out to 13%. It is not the same as high strength. Volvo SPA cars are 40% ultra high strength.

      I agree that both cars are very safe and it's not much of a difference, not enough to be some sort of dealbreaker. The big difference, for me, was that the Subaru was a lot bigger and less expensive, while the Volvo was more pleasant to drive, sit in, and listen to music in.
      Future: 2020 V60 CC Birch Light with Advanced Package and Bowers and Wilkins (OSD summer 2020)
      Current: Subaru Outback 2015, Limited

    17. #50
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2007
      Location
      Eastern MA
      Posts
      110
      Quote Originally Posted by ap17 View Post
      I hate to be pedantic, but the article lists three types of ultra high strength steels whose total on the Subaru comes out to 13%. It is not the same as high strength. Volvo SPA cars are 40% ultra high strength.
      Mea Culpa - Volvo wins!

    18. #51
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2007
      Location
      Eastern MA
      Posts
      110
      Quote Originally Posted by Power6 View Post
      Don't disagree. Just consider that many automakers specifically engineer the safety that is needed to get a "top pick" by the IIHS or whatever local standard for their marketing dept to take safety off the table as a reason for the consumer to buy something else. Volvo has occasionally shown that they have their own set of higher standards even if the various rating orgs are not specifically testing an aspect they feel is important. That's hard to "know" but I can'f really fault someone who does think that way, there is some evidence for it. So I guess I'm just saying *your* assessment of the situation may not be more valid than someone elses, at some point it all goes through each of our irrational brains lol.

      Funny you mention headlights, when looking at the ratings for 2020 the number of IIHS "Top Safety Plus" picks went down from 2019. It looks like they changed their criteria from "good headlights must be available" to "acceptable headlights must be standard". A large number of "plus" picks say "*after December 2019" or similar because the mfrs scrambled to revise headlights or make good LEDs standard across the model. The S60/V60 missed out on the "plus" because the standard LEDs are marginal. Only the midyear updated curve adaptive headlights are now rated good. Looks like Subaru was able to eek out a good rating on the Forester with the standard fixed LED headlights and snag the plus. Personally I think IIHS is doing good work forcing mfrs to stop putting crappy headlights in cars!
      I seem to recall that when looking through the crash test results for different years of a car model from a domestic auto maker, it became apparent that they redesigned the driver's side one year to do well on the driver's side small overlap test, but when IIHS started testing the passenger side in addition it became apparent that they must have redesigned only the driver's side, as the passenger side faired poorly. Totally disgusting approach IMHO. We on this forum all know (or at least have high confidence) that Volvo would never do things that way.

      With regard to headlights, even if the tests have some flaws (as some claim), there is no doubt that they have caused the auto industry to improve. FWIW, when assessing headlights I look at the actual measurements and assessment, not just the composite rating. Headlights that perform very comparably can end up landing on opposite sides of a rating criterion.

    19. #52
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2019
      Location
      Wayland, MA
      Posts
      227
      Quote Originally Posted by ap17 View Post
      I hate to be pedantic, but the article lists three types of ultra high strength steels whose total on the Subaru comes out to 13%. It is not the same as high strength. Volvo SPA cars are 40% ultra high strength.
      I'm gonna make a wild guess and figure that actual crash test results or scores as flawed as they could be, are going to be more relevant than comparing raw % of xxx-strength steel lol.

      Quote Originally Posted by waterdog View Post
      I seem to recall that when looking through the crash test results for different years of a car model from a domestic auto maker, it became apparent that they redesigned the driver's side one year to do well on the driver's side small overlap test, but when IIHS started testing the passenger side in addition it became apparent that they must have redesigned only the driver's side, as the passenger side faired poorly. Totally disgusting approach IMHO. We on this forum all know (or at least have high confidence) that Volvo would never do things that way.
      When IIHS tested the passengers side before they added that as part of the test...https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredo...eport/pdf/51/6 you can see the Subaru Forester was there and the results weren't great. What gets me is they make it in RHD, you'd think it's baked into the car to protect both possible driver's seats?? It appears not, until that test was officially implemented and it now gets a good rating.

      Quote Originally Posted by waterdog View Post
      With regard to headlights, even if the tests have some flaws (as some claim), there is no doubt that they have caused the auto industry to improve. FWIW, when assessing headlights I look at the actual measurements and assessment, not just the composite rating. Headlights that perform very comparably can end up landing on opposite sides of a rating criterion.
      No doubt. I probably got better things to do than read IIHS headlight ratings...but digging into them cuz I am a curious ADHD sort, you find surprising things like most halogen high beams seem to easily outperform the high beams on full LED headlights. And most HIDs replaced by LED have been a downgrade until very recently as well. In general it's just been all over the map, a $20k car could have better headlights than a $80k car. IIHS forcing this issue is a good thing. I'm big on good headlights and being able to see well at night. You could play with swapping halogen bulbs a bit, but with the LED units you're stuck with what you get. The base S60 headlights aren't great, but the auto high beams do work perfectly so that makes them OK.

    20. #53
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Mar 2018
      Location
      Connecticut
      Posts
      157
      Quote Originally Posted by Power6 View Post
      I'm gonna make a wild guess and figure that actual crash test results or scores as flawed as they could be, are going to be more relevant than comparing raw % of xxx-strength steel lol.
      Yeah, which is why I think the safety advantage of Volvo over Subaru is probably rather marginal overall. However I think the significantly greater use of ultra high strength steel in Volvo, implying greater cabin integrity, might make a big difference in weird situations not measured on government crash tests, like getting hit by a semi-truck or crashing into a tree when trying to avoid a deer, or even driving off a cliff:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN4o8TERuoY

      Volvo supposedly does a lot of in-house tests that go over and beyond what the governments mandate so I suspect it is more likely to cover its occupants in these rare but dangerous circumstances.

      Quote Originally Posted by Power6 View Post
      When IIHS tested the passengers side before they added that as part of the test...https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredo...eport/pdf/51/6 you can see the Subaru Forester was there and the results weren't great. What gets me is they make it in RHD, you'd think it's baked into the car to protect both possible driver's seats?? It appears not, until that test was officially implemented and it now gets a good rating.
      I'm surprised and disappointed, I didn't think Subaru would have been one of those companies.
      Last edited by ap17; 02-21-2020 at 08:22 AM.
      Future: 2020 V60 CC Birch Light with Advanced Package and Bowers and Wilkins (OSD summer 2020)
      Current: Subaru Outback 2015, Limited

    21. #54
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2007
      Location
      Eastern MA
      Posts
      110
      Quote Originally Posted by ap17 View Post

      'm surprised and disappointed, I didn't think Subaru would have been one of those companies.
      Me too.


      What I really wanted was an SPA version of an XC70 (very practical boxy AWD wagon with large cargo capacity and high ground clearance), but Volvo choose to make their larger wagon beautiful, with less practical storage compartment, and their smaller wagon not quite as big as I want. That's what led me to the Forester - a very practical boxy AWD wagon with large cargo capacity and high ground clearance (and good roof rails, good headlights, and good safety scores). I do, however, still wish Volvo made the car I wanted. If my future needs change, or Volvo starts making the car I want, I will return to the fold.

    22. #55
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Mar 2018
      Location
      Connecticut
      Posts
      157
      Quote Originally Posted by waterdog View Post
      Me too.


      What I really wanted was an SPA version of an XC70 (very practical boxy AWD wagon with large cargo capacity and high ground clearance), but Volvo choose to make their larger wagon beautiful, with less practical storage compartment, and their smaller wagon not quite as big as I want. That's what led me to the Forester - a very practical boxy AWD wagon with large cargo capacity and high ground clearance (and good roof rails, good headlights, and good safety scores). I do, however, still wish Volvo made the car I wanted. If my future needs change, or Volvo starts making the car I want, I will return to the fold.
      Heh, we were in the same situation! But because one of our kids has left home and the other is leaving in 2 years we decided to compromise with size rather than with the comforts. However a modern, boxy V70 would have been preferred. Even better, if Volvo had done in the 21st century to the 1980s bricks, what VW did to the Beetle in the 90s, would have been perfect. Retained the boxy practicality while having the modern handling, gorgeous interior, incredible radio, latest safety features, and panoramic sunroof.

      The V60, though smaller, has been made to be more practical for its size than the V90:

      https://jalopnik.com/volvo-v60-vs-v9...-ey-1823194535
      Last edited by ap17; 02-21-2020 at 04:46 PM.
      Future: 2020 V60 CC Birch Light with Advanced Package and Bowers and Wilkins (OSD summer 2020)
      Current: Subaru Outback 2015, Limited

    23. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 4
      Last Post: 02-20-2019, 11:22 PM
    2. Chipped S40T5AWD vs Subaru Legacy GT
      By S40T5! in forum S40 & V50 (2005-2012)
      Replies: 106
      Last Post: 03-07-2008, 03:20 AM
    3. Volvo V50 vs. Subaru Legacy on Fifth Gear
      By s40turbo585 in forum S40 & V50 (2005-2012)
      Replies: 32
      Last Post: 06-15-2006, 11:37 AM
    4. 2005 S40 T5 AWD vs. 2005 Subaru Legacy GT
      By jholder in forum S40 & V50 (2005-2012)
      Replies: 51
      Last Post: 05-21-2006, 10:39 AM