
Click above for high-res gallery of the 2008 Volvo XC70
While station wagons are a very big part of the European automotive landscape, here in the States the two-box design sells much better when it's a crossover. We Americans don't have many choices on the true wagon front, mostly because high volume demand simply doesn't exist. One wagon that has been around for a while is the Volvo XC70, which combines much of the rugged AWD utility of an SUV with traditional wagon packaging. The XC70 is all-new for 2008, including its Ford Mondeo-derived platform, 3.2L engine and more refined sheet metal. On paper, the XC70 delivers a good-looking, safe and evolved station wagon to go head-to-head with upscale utility vehicles, but how will it hold up in the Autoblog Garage? Hit the jump to find out.
All photos Copyright ©2008 Chris Shunk / Weblogs, Inc.
Click any image to enlarge
Our Seashell Metallic XC70 came equipped with heated leather seats, a moonroof, premium audio system, and most of the available safety features. All those options added $9,000 to the Volvo wagon's $37,000 entry price, bringing the total damage to $46,405.
The previous generation XC70 was a major leap in terms of styling compared to the ultra-boxy Volvo wagons of yore, but the 2008 model delivers an evolutionary change. The new XC70 has a more refined look than its predecessor, with a slightly chiseled hood, shapely Bi-Xenon headlights and a larger grille. Attention has been taken away from the lower air dam and instead refocused to the XC70's fog lamps that are ringed with chrome, accentuating the wagon's wider, more athletic-looking stance.
The profile of the XC70 has softer sheet metal than its predecessor, and the plastic cladding surrounding the rugged-looking wagon looks less chunky and cheap in its updated form. Out back, the XC70 receives larger, brighter tail lamps, and emergency brake lights down at the bumper. Overall, the XC70 looks more fitting of a $46,000 wagon than the model it replaces, but that's still a lot of coin. 
On the inside, the XC70 carries many of the styling cues from the more expensive Volvo S80 sedan that went on sale a year earlier. The dash materials, gauge cluster and steering wheel are among the items virtually unchanged form the S80. The centerpiece of the cabin is the sharp-looking suspended center console that appears in some form on most new Volvos, with high quality buttons and knobs that are easy to find.
Our XC70's dark brown leather seats were among the more pleasant in which we've sat, with ample bolstering and thigh support. Seat materials were also very high quality, and soft touch materials draped the arm rest and doors. One area of disappointment was the hard plastic against which our knees would bang while driving. In the S80, softer materials were used around these touch points, which made the cabin look and feel more luxurious.
Keeping in step with Volvo tradition, safety is omnipresent. Volvo uses high-strength steel everywhere it can, and considerable engineering effort was put into "deformation zones" that absorb crash energy from larger vehicles. Volvo stocked the XC70 with front and side impact airbags while protecting our necks with the WHIPS whiplash protection system. The automaker also employed optional equipment like adaptive cruise control, BLIS blind spot protection and emergency brake assist to keep vehicle occupants out of harms way altogether. One safety technology that drove us bonkers during our time with the XC70 was the parking assist system. Each time we started the wagon, the system defaulted to the On position, and it beeped loudly whenever we were within about four feet of a surrounding vehicle.
On the road, the XC70 has a nicely composed yet slightly soft ride that provides plenty of comfort for long commutes and family vacations. The 3.2L inline six mates to an Aisin six-speed auto transmission for a very smooth yet somewhat unexciting driving experience. While Volvo's corporate six sounds great and revs freely, 235 horsepower just isn't enough to properly motivate a two-ton station wagon, and it's not what we expect for $46,000. The steering, however, is nicely weighted for a wagon, which basically means that it wouldn't pass muster in a sports sedan but is engaging enough for family transportation. Body roll is quite a bit better than what I get with my taller Ford Freestyle, and the standard Haldex AWD works splendidly in the slushy ice conditions we experienced during our time with the XC70.
Bad weather is the reason most people want AWD, but we were disappointed that the rugged looks of the XC70 didn't carry over to off-road performance, as stability control and AWD neuter wheel slip by locking the rubber all together. We also had little luck testing Volvo's hill descent control due to the fact that we couldn't get up the hill in the first place, and we're not talking Mt. Kilimanjaro, either folks. This was more like a bunny hill.
We were looking forward to our time in the XC70 because we thought it would give us most of what we wanted from an SUV without the extra size and fuel economy. After a week with the wagon, however, it was its fuel economy that left us utterly perplexed. We achieved a miserable 18 mpg in mixed driving, which was worse than what we got in the 5,000 lb, seven-passenger Buick Enclave. We even got 18.5 mpg out of the 4,500 lb, V8-powered flying brick that is the Dodge Dakota. It seems like it would be against the laws of physics for the Volvo wagon to get worse fuel economy than a larger, more powerful CUV, but the numbers don't lie. We even reset the fuel economy gauge half-way through the week, but the results didn't change.
Autoblog reviews the Volvo XC70 station wagon
The Volvo XC70 delivers on good looks, impeccable safety and the European charm that some Americans continue to covet. But as a family man with three children, there are plenty of other vehicles on the market that can haul more people and more stuff than the XC70 while delivering better fuel economy at a lower price.
All photos Copyright ©2008 Chris Shunk / Weblogs, Inc.















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Xcountryflyer @ Mar 13th 2008 12:17PM
Too expensive and if the MPG is indicative of most of them--I'd just get a CUV. A wagon should offer some MPG bonus or people will just pass it by.
TriShield @ Mar 13th 2008 12:20PM
I'd have one of these for driving dynamics alone before most SUVs or crossovers. It's very handsome and more unique on our roads. I have noticed that outside of Subaru wagons the fuel consumptions of wagons like this and the Audi Avant/Allroads isn't good at all. But I think the comfort and driving experience make up for it. It's really a shame cars like this don't make up half of the total vehicles on US roads.
psarhjinian @ Mar 13th 2008 12:34PM
The fuel economy is poor on the S60 and Audi A6 sedan as well, so it's not really the fault of the wagon body, but of the platform as a whole. The weight difference usually doesn't make much difference.
Wagons actually have a tangible aerodynamic benefit, especially at higher speeds.
Mattias @ Mar 13th 2008 12:36PM
Here in germany Subarus are known as very thirsty. A cause for this perception me be the missing diesel (until in a few weeks...). Both Volvo and Audi have great economical diesels in the 150 to 200hp range for the XC70 and the A6 Allroad.
psarhjinian @ Mar 13th 2008 12:32PM
I'd be hard pressed to pick this over the already-excellent V70. I'd say the same for the Outback vs Legacy wagon as well. There's no real utility gain, and the loss of agility and economy is very real.
Anyone know of the Outback and XC70 are classed as light trucks under CAFE?
Josh @ Mar 13th 2008 1:42PM
One of the reasons that people choose the XC or Outback versions is ground clearance. If you have to drive on dirt roads regularly it makes a big difference. My dad actually picked up an outback because he kept losing mufflers getting on and off of ferries.
psarhjinian @ Mar 13th 2008 1:49PM
@Josh,
When 75% of roads are paved in the US (it's less in Canada) and most cars have at least four to six inches of clearance, does it really matter much? I have a Honda Fit and it's rare--even when I go camping--that I've had to back off. I'll hit the occasional snowbank, but I've yet to see one impassable enough that I wouldn't also need tire chains.
I'll agree that there's some benefit to the ride height, but I don't think that it's a benefit that's realized very often.
apearlman @ Mar 20th 2008 9:10PM
Bad news -- the Legacy wagon was discontinued. I agree, I don't have much use for the Outback's ground clearance, but starting about a year ago, if you want a Legacy wagon, Subaru has only the Outback version to offer.
Bummer.
-Andrew
apearlman @ Mar 20th 2008 9:10PM
Bad news -- the Legacy wagon was discontinued. I agree, I don't have much use for the Outback's ground clearance, but starting about a year ago, if you want a Legacy wagon, Subaru has only the Outback version to offer.
Bummer.
-Andrew
Frustrated Consumer @ Mar 13th 2008 12:32PM
I think I'll wait for the Ford Flex, the mileage may not be any better but more useable space at a lower price point.
psarhjinian @ Mar 13th 2008 12:37PM
You may as well get a minivan if that's what you want. The Flex, like GM's Lambda crossovers, is more of a cramped minivan than a true wagon.
No, wait, sorry, they're cramped and _heavy_ minivans.
VP @ Mar 13th 2008 12:34PM
Wow, 18MPG and i am paying 46K for this thing? I would take the luxurious and eye catching Enclave over this thing in a heartbeat and i wouldn't have to carry around plastic cladding all around me.
Gooch @ Mar 13th 2008 1:02PM
In talking fuel economy, the issue seems to be simply two things (and I'll use the vehicles you compared the Volvo to in discussing fuel economy):
1) GM's fuel metering is some of the best in the world. Their vehicles, even the ones with large, powerful motors powering heavyweight chassis, tend to do reasonably well in gas mileage.
2) The Dakota's V-8 doesn't have to work as hard to move its bulk as the Volvo motor does to move its own.
Of course, there's gearing, driving style and other small factors to consider, but these are the two primary reasons.
kristian @ Mar 13th 2008 1:07PM
That fuel economy is shocking, and considering you could save money by buying a V70 and perhaps gain 1mpg, that option looks a lot better. There's no denying that driving an XC70 (and to an ever-so-slightly lesser degree, the V70) is one of the most relaxing on-road experiences a person can have. That's gotta be worth something. Driving the better-looking obvious competitor - Enclave - is NOT as good(http://goodcarbadcar.blogspot.com/2007/09/buick-enclave-driven.html), but money means something. And so does apperance.
antrow @ Mar 17th 2008 2:05PM
Yes, the V70 is a good choice but it lacks the AWD option in the US.
SPG @ Mar 13th 2008 1:17PM
People loved the 240's and the 740's.
And they sold very well.
This bloated yuppie-wagon has evolved and alienated Volvo traditionalists.
I'm sure it's a great car but it's not the Volvo I'd want.
Matthew @ Mar 14th 2008 8:32AM
As an 89 Volvo 740 owner...I think that Volvo would be smart to sell some lower priced, quality, safe cars like the 240-740 models of a few years back. They seem to me to be missing a large percentage of potential Volvo owners due to price and perceived value for price.
Chris @ Mar 13th 2008 1:27PM
Not impressed. Perhaps its underpowered and the engine needs the revs to respond properly? That or the car just does not work well without a diesel.
My sister recently got a XC90 for less than this!
Mattias @ Mar 13th 2008 1:34PM
The I6 natural aspirated engine does not provide much low rpm torque. In fact, the turbocharged I5 with nearly similar hp feels much better in the V70.
By the way: Drive the I5 turbodiesl (the 185hp version) with six speed manual and you know the ideal engine for that car!
Dave T. @ Mar 13th 2008 1:41PM
Not sure why the hate keeps flowing for Volovs here on AB. Also not sure why it isn't compared to other wagons in its class versus two vehicles vastly different. Also those safety feature options raise the price significantly like the Blind spot and accident avoidance. Those two alone total $2200.
I agree mileage could be better but in all the GM crossovers I've experienced worse, Acadia, Outlook and Enclave, not better mileage.
I found the XC70 extremely nice for the price. Less than an Audi, BMW or Mercedes, safer, kid booster seats built in, a gigantic rear cargo area with trick underfloor storage and solid rails.
If you go into the test comparing it to an SUV and want to fit 3 kids in it I'm not sure you'd ever come out with a positive review.
I do agree it should get the new T6 from the S80. That engine is far superior. This engine is decent though.