Comments on: Volvo announces 2007 S80 pricing, 0-60 times (updated) http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html Car news, reviews, and specs for the auto-industry Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:32:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: kyle http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-206939 kyle Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:57:03 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-206939 The new engines were also created for better safety. Volvo made it more compact (putting the stuff on top of the gear box, and the camshaft at the rear of the engine) creating a lot more space in the engine compartment - so when a crash occurs, the engine has its own kind of crumble zone. Also, just because they made a "V8" doesnt mean Volvo was thinking "hey, lets make a sport saloon" - thats what the S60 is for. Its for better fuel economy, and so the people who buy the car can say "I have a V8" Plus, who expects it to be fast? the thing is pretty much all steel. people dont buy volvos for speed and perfect handling - if they want that kind of stuff, they should know better to look at BMW, Audi, etc... people who buy volvos are mid 30's early 40's parents who want a safe car that is more about practicality than bronze. Because once your in a head on collison going 50, I doubt the first thing your thinking is how fast and cool your car is, and how everyone is envious of you - your thinking "damn, why did i have to replace the steering wheel airbag with a formual-one steering wheel" The new engines were also created for better safety. Volvo made it more compact (putting the stuff on top of the gear box, and the camshaft at the rear of the engine) creating a lot more space in the engine compartment – so when a crash occurs, the engine has its own kind of crumble zone.
Also, just because they made a “V8″ doesnt mean Volvo was thinking “hey, lets make a sport saloon” – thats what the S60 is for. Its for better fuel economy, and so the people who buy the car can say “I have a V8″
Plus, who expects it to be fast?
the thing is pretty much all steel.

people dont buy volvos for speed and perfect handling – if they want that kind of stuff, they should know better to look at BMW, Audi, etc…

people who buy volvos are mid 30′s early 40′s parents who want a safe car that is more about practicality than bronze. Because once your in a head on collison going 50, I doubt the first thing your thinking is how fast and cool your car is, and how everyone is envious of you – your thinking “damn, why did i have to replace the steering wheel airbag with a formual-one steering wheel”

]]> By: BA http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-49023 BA Tue, 23 May 2006 12:54:51 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-49023 Why did they use a V8 - efficiency. A similarly size V6 or highly tuned V5 turbo unit would be considerably less refined and a good deal noisier. Then there’s the size issue, the new V8 they employ is roughly the same size at the older V6s, so why not? The more cylinders the smoother the power delivery and the better the sound (not noise, twat.) Get a clue? Not from you, obviously. Comment by Guttersludge, posted on April10 at 4:33 am" I have to disagree with that statement: first off they are I6 and I5 units, I is for inline, second the I6 is a naturally balanced design whereas the V8 requires counter weights to balance it's self therefore adding excess weight to the equation, third the current 2.5T is an extremely refined engine and is also extremely quiet, fourth the If the new I6 was given a turbo even a light pressure one I do believe that it would easily beat the new V8. Why did they use a V8 – efficiency. A similarly size V6 or highly tuned V5 turbo unit would be considerably less refined and a good deal noisier. Then there’s the size issue, the new V8 they employ is roughly the same size at the older V6s, so why not? The more cylinders the smoother the power delivery and the better the sound (not noise, twat.)
Get a clue? Not from you, obviously.
Comment by Guttersludge, posted on April10 at 4:33 am”

I have to disagree with that statement: first off they are I6 and I5 units, I is for inline, second the I6 is a naturally balanced design whereas the V8 requires counter weights to balance it’s self therefore adding excess weight to the equation, third the current 2.5T is an extremely refined engine and is also extremely quiet, fourth the If the new I6 was given a turbo even a light pressure one I do believe that it would easily beat the new V8.

]]> By: Guttersludge http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-11997 Guttersludge Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:33:01 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-11997 Attention: 'lars ulrich' If you are indeed the multinaire drummer for our favourite post-thrash heavy foursome, then respect, but, I doubt it, so that probably makes you a poser - in which case, let me explain: Why did they use a V8 - efficiency. A similarly size V6 or highly tuned V5 turbo unit would be considerably less refined and a good deal noisier. Then there's the size issue, the new V8 they employ is roughly the same size at the older V6s, so why not? The more cylinders the smoother the power delivery and the better the sound (not noise, twat.) Get a clue? Not from you, obviously. Aggresive driving is for punk-ass kids with mediocre 10-year old Jap coupés, or the lucky few with the fiscal reserve allowing actual performance cars -Ferrari, Aston, Noble et al. So, 'dude,' why don't you get a grip, grow a pair and go hassle some kids at kindergarten. Attention: ‘lars ulrich’

If you are indeed the multinaire drummer for our favourite post-thrash heavy foursome, then respect, but, I doubt it, so that probably makes you a poser – in which case, let me explain:

Why did they use a V8 – efficiency. A similarly size V6 or highly tuned V5 turbo unit would be considerably less refined and a good deal noisier. Then there’s the size issue, the new V8 they employ is roughly the same size at the older V6s, so why not? The more cylinders the smoother the power delivery and the better the sound (not noise, twat.)

Get a clue? Not from you, obviously.

Aggresive driving is for punk-ass kids with mediocre 10-year old Jap coupés, or the lucky few with the fiscal reserve allowing actual performance cars -Ferrari, Aston, Noble et al.

So, ‘dude,’ why don’t you get a grip, grow a pair and go hassle some kids at kindergarten.

]]> By: Guttersludge http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-11996 Guttersludge Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:20:44 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-11996 Genuine Scandinavian ice-cool class with a trick V8. Sonds like Volvo finally got their collective heads screwed on straight. I reckon it will make a pretty successful alternative choice to the Teutons at last. Tempting? A Volvo? 10 Years ago, not a chance in hell, now? For sure. Kudos to Ford. Let's see an R version and um, maybe a coupé too... Genuine Scandinavian ice-cool class with a trick V8. Sonds like Volvo finally got their collective heads screwed on straight. I reckon it will make a pretty successful alternative choice to the Teutons at last. Tempting? A Volvo? 10 Years ago, not a chance in hell, now? For sure. Kudos to Ford. Let’s see an R version and um, maybe a coupé too…

]]> By: lars ulrich http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-11878 lars ulrich Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:12:42 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-11878 what do you mean finally? lol! volvos suck dude, get a clue, nobody is going to drive aggresive with their S80, its for the safety freaks. in fact, i dont even know why they put a V8 in it. what do you mean finally? lol! volvos suck dude, get a clue, nobody is going to drive aggresive with their S80, its for the safety freaks. in fact, i dont even know why they put a V8 in it.

]]> By: Greenspeed http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-11681 Greenspeed Sun, 09 Apr 2006 03:59:47 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-11681 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

]]> By: Saud http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-11527 Saud Sat, 08 Apr 2006 15:31:21 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-11527 Finally the S80 gets a V8 & seriously slick styling Finally the S80 gets a V8 & seriously slick styling

]]> By: monts http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-11462 monts Sat, 08 Apr 2006 02:38:59 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-11462 A flagship Volvo for about 26000$ US? A flagship Volvo for about 26000$ US?

]]> By: JohnnyBlazE http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-11453 JohnnyBlazE Sat, 08 Apr 2006 00:42:05 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-11453 Scott: The S80 isn't a small car though... Still, there's no "R" mentioned... does this mean no AWD? Scott: The S80 isn’t a small car though… Still, there’s no “R” mentioned… does this mean no AWD?

]]> By: canut4ever http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-11451 canut4ever Sat, 08 Apr 2006 00:05:13 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-11451 This latest evolution of Volvo's styling is the best. Makes the previous generation look like a car for geriatrics. Nice fusion of new details with a pleasantly familiar style of Volvo sedans. This latest evolution of Volvo’s styling is the best. Makes the previous generation look like a car for geriatrics. Nice fusion of new details with a pleasantly familiar style of Volvo sedans.

]]> By: ///mach3 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-11403 ///mach3 Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:58:58 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-11403 328 hp 3.2-liter I6 - incorrect: "The second engine will be a completely new, naturally aspirated 3.2-litre six-cylinder unit delivering 235bhp with 300Nm of torque" - correct I was wondering how they were getting 100 BHP per litre.. I was thinkin they were using the M3's I6, until reading the article ;) 328 hp 3.2-liter I6 – incorrect:
“The second engine will be a completely new, naturally aspirated 3.2-litre six-cylinder unit delivering 235bhp with 300Nm of torque” – correct

I was wondering how they were getting 100 BHP per litre.. I was thinkin they were using the M3′s I6, until reading the article ;)

]]> By: ///mach3 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-11402 ///mach3 Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:58:42 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-11402 328 hp 3.2-liter I6 328 hp 3.2-liter I6

]]> By: Scott http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-11396 Scott Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:01:33 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-11396 Not really, seems realistic to me, this car isn't a lightweight, and isn't utilising a manual transmission or RWD (as far as I know). Not really, seems realistic to me, this car isn’t a lightweight, and isn’t utilising a manual transmission or RWD (as far as I know).

]]> By: Adam http://www.leftlanenews.com/2295.html#comment-11387 Adam Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:40:04 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/2295/#comment-11387 Those cars seem slow for as much power as they are putting out. Those cars seem slow for as much power as they are putting out.

]]>