Which is better in terms of AWD?

http://www.leftlanenews.com/video-vo...ubaru-awd.html

This video seems to show the Subaru as much, much better.

Anyone have real world experience why I would choose Volvo over
Subaru?

I can see the XC70 has more space and more safety features, but for
the price difference - the Subaru seems a better deal.

Input please?

Thanks,

Tmuld

In article <1192047588.713167.255890@19g2000hsx.googlegroups. com>,
Tmuldoon <tmuldoon@spliced.com> wrote:

> http://www.leftlanenews.com/video-vo...ubaru-awd.html
>
> This video seems to show the Subaru as much, much better.
>
> Anyone have real world experience why I would choose Volvo over
> Subaru?
>
> I can see the XC70 has more space and more safety features, but for
> the price difference - the Subaru seems a better deal.

I had a Subaru Legacy and now have a XC70. The AWD on both was more
than adequate. That is not a deciding factor. What was different was:

1) The Subaru was a much smaller vehicle with less power and worse gas
mileage.

2) The Subaru brakes rusted so bad that they required major overhaul to
pass state inspection. Volvo brakes just keep on working with just the
occasional new pads.

3) The Subaru had such bad body rust that the entire tailgate had to be
replaced and the rest of the car had to be body pasted and repainted.
My Volvos have never had body rust.

4) The Subaru AWD transaxle had a major failure and had to be replaced.
My XC70 has not had any problems.

5) The Subaru also had the passenger sun visor fall off, the drivers
door locked permanently with me inside, the a/c compressor fell apart
and had to be replaced, all 4 shocks failed, the axle bearings failed,
and the sun roof leaked, all in less than 120,000 miles.

The Subaru was cheap to buy, but had to be scrapped with only 120,000
miles. My Volvos are a little more expensive to buy but have excellent
resale value, With 120,000 to 180,000 miles on them, they sell in 1 day
privately for about 25 to 35% of the purchase price. So even though the
Subaru was cheaper to own, the net cost of ownership was much higher.

Absolutely no comparison.
--
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
http://rhodyman.net/homevo.html

"Stephen Henning" <pighash@aol.com> wrote in message
newsighash-D18755.23363510102007@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <1192047588.713167.255890@19g2000hsx.googlegroups. com>,
> Tmuldoon <tmuldoon@spliced.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.leftlanenews.com/video-vo...ubaru-awd.html
>>
>> This video seems to show the Subaru as much, much better.
>>
>> Anyone have real world experience why I would choose Volvo over
>> Subaru?
>>
>> I can see the XC70 has more space and more safety features, but for
>> the price difference - the Subaru seems a better deal.
>
> I had a Subaru Legacy and now have a XC70. The AWD on both was more
> than adequate. That is not a deciding factor. What was different was:
>
> 1) The Subaru was a much smaller vehicle with less power and worse gas
> mileage.
>
> 2) The Subaru brakes rusted so bad that they required major overhaul to
> pass state inspection. Volvo brakes just keep on working with just the
> occasional new pads.
>
> 3) The Subaru had such bad body rust that the entire tailgate had to be
> replaced and the rest of the car had to be body pasted and repainted.
> My Volvos have never had body rust.
>
> 4) The Subaru AWD transaxle had a major failure and had to be replaced.
> My XC70 has not had any problems.
>
> 5) The Subaru also had the passenger sun visor fall off, the drivers
> door locked permanently with me inside, the a/c compressor fell apart
> and had to be replaced, all 4 shocks failed, the axle bearings failed,
> and the sun roof leaked, all in less than 120,000 miles.
>
> The Subaru was cheap to buy, but had to be scrapped with only 120,000
> miles. My Volvos are a little more expensive to buy but have excellent
> resale value, With 120,000 to 180,000 miles on them, they sell in 1 day
> privately for about 25 to 35% of the purchase price. So even though the
> Subaru was cheaper to own, the net cost of ownership was much higher.
>
> Absolutely no comparison.
> --


That sounds shockingly bad. Several friends of mine have Subarus, the oldest
is a '99, has about 150K on it, only work that's been done on it is routine
maintenance, the car still looks almost new inside and out. Then again, even
30 year old cars rarely have rust in this area.

On Oct 10, 4:19 pm, Tmuldoon <tmuld...@spliced.com> wrote:
> Which is better in terms of AWD?
>
> http://www.leftlanenews.com/video-vo...ubaru-awd.html
>
> This video seems to show the Subaru as much, much better.
>
> Anyone have real world experience why I would choose Volvo over
> Subaru?
>
> I can see the XC70 has more space and more safety features, but for
> the price difference - the Subaru seems a better deal.
>
> Input please?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tmuld

Before drawing any conclusions about the traction worthiness of one
system over the other I would like to see a more professional test
performed. Clearly the "test" in that video was supposed to leave
the viewer with the impression that vehicles with the Volvo AWD system
can barely get out of their own tracks. If the Volvo AWD system
really performed that poorly, car reviewers would have throughly
skewered the Volvo system long before now. Additionally, the two AWD
systems are different and the driving technique used on one may not
work well on the other.

I would not be surprised if the individual performing that test has
another hidden agenda.

Roadie yazmýþ:
> On Oct 10, 4:19 pm, Tmuldoon <tmuld...@spliced.com> wrote:
>> Which is better in terms of AWD?
>>
>> http://www.leftlanenews.com/video-vo...ubaru-awd.html
>>
>> This video seems to show the Subaru as much, much better.
>>
>> Anyone have real world experience why I would choose Volvo over
>> Subaru?
>>
>> I can see the XC70 has more space and more safety features, but for
>> the price difference - the Subaru seems a better deal.
>>
>> Input please?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tmuld
>
> Before drawing any conclusions about the traction worthiness of one
> system over the other I would like to see a more professional test
> performed. Clearly the "test" in that video was supposed to leave
> the viewer with the impression that vehicles with the Volvo AWD system
> can barely get out of their own tracks. If the Volvo AWD system
> really performed that poorly, car reviewers would have throughly
> skewered the Volvo system long before now. Additionally, the two AWD
> systems are different and the driving technique used on one may not
> work well on the other.
>
> I would not be surprised if the individual performing that test has
> another hidden agenda.
>

As far as i know audi quattro is the far best awd system in the world
ever made. Take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL77hwL51YE

In article <ffahvj$s0n$1@aioe.org>, hgemici_shark@yahoo.co.uk says...
> As far as i know audi quattro is the far best awd system in the world
> ever made. Take a look at this:
>
Well, it sure shows off the ability of the spiked tires . . . but who
knows what it says about the Quattro system?

Java

Espressopithecus (Java Man) <Espressopithecus yazmýþ:
> In article <ffahvj$s0n$1@aioe.org>, hgemici_shark@yahoo.co.uk says...
>> As far as i know audi quattro is the far best awd system in the world
>> ever made. Take a look at this:
>>
> Well, it sure shows off the ability of the spiked tires . . . but who
> knows what it says about the Quattro system?
>
> Java

Well, I think the second link I've given clarifies the difference
between four wheel drive systems and quattro better. I'd like to mention
here that I am a volvo owner, and also a big fan. I wish xc70 beat the
others.

sorry forgot to send link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyKstZ6a5ag

Hakan Gemici yazmýþ:
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) <Espressopithecus yazmýþ:
>> In article <ffahvj$s0n$1@aioe.org>, hgemici_shark@yahoo.co.uk says...
>>> As far as i know audi quattro is the far best awd system in the world
>>> ever made. Take a look at this:
>>>
>> Well, it sure shows off the ability of the spiked tires . . . but who
>> knows what it says about the Quattro system?
>>
>> Java
>
> Well, I think the second link I've given clarifies the difference
> between four wheel drive systems and quattro better. I'd like to mention
> here that I am a volvo owner, and also a big fan. I wish xc70 beat the
> others.

On Oct 19, 11:19 am, Hakan Gemici <hgemici_sh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Roadie yazmýþ:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 4:19 pm, Tmuldoon <tmuld...@spliced.com> wrote:
> >> Which is better in terms of AWD?
>
> >>http://www.leftlanenews.com/video-vo...ubaru-awd.html
>
> >> This video seems to show the Subaru as much, much better.
>
> >> Anyone have real world experience why I would choose Volvo over
> >> Subaru?
>
> >> I can see the XC70 has more space and more safety features, but for
> >> the price difference - the Subaru seems a better deal.
>
> >> Input please?
>
> >> Thanks,
>
> >> Tmuld
>
> > Before drawing any conclusions about the traction worthiness of one
> > system over the other I would like to see a more professional test
> > performed. Clearly the "test" in that video was supposed to leave
> > the viewer with the impression that vehicles with the Volvo AWD system
> > can barely get out of their own tracks. If the Volvo AWD system
> > really performed that poorly, car reviewers would have throughly
> > skewered the Volvo system long before now. Additionally, the two AWD
> > systems are different and the driving technique used on one may not
> > work well on the other.
>
> > I would not be surprised if the individual performing that test has
> > another hidden agenda.
>
> As far as i know audi quattro is the far best awd system in the world
> ever made. Take a look at this:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL77hwL51YE- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry, but a hacked together video on Youtube does not provide any
support for quattro. At best it shows the videographer is capable of
engineering a test to support a previously drawn conclusion. As with
the Volvo vs Subaru "test". If a comparative traction test were
performed by a recognized automobile testing authority in controlled
conditions then such a test might prove something.

I find it impossible to believe that the very popular Volvo system
could fall so short short and such a shortcoming would not be
mentioned in the automotive press.