Hello folks,
This year I'm going to replace my worn-out 1999 Mercury Sable LS station wagon with 219K miles under its tires.
The replacement car will be either 2012 - 2013 Volvo XC70 3.2 or Subaru Outback 3.6R.
I would like to ask your opinion regarding general Volvo reliability, longevity, repair-ability and real world fuel economy. I'm concerned that after Volvo was sold to Chinese its quality may gone down. What attracts me in Volvo XC70 is its European origin, lower than Subaru's height and better access-ability of its luggage rails. What concerns me is Volvo's underpowered 3.2 engine and its posted gas mileage, though FWD version may have the same MPG as AWD Subaru. Personally, I have no bias towards any of these two cars. I'm just trying to get as much information as possible from the both Volvo and Subaru aficionados.
Please voice your opinions on the current Volvo XC70 model. Its positive and negative sides.
Thank you in advance.

 

I have experience with the 2008 XC70 AWD 3.2 (same as 2012) and both the current Outback 2.5i and 3.6R. Reliability for the XC70 and Outback 3.6 will be about the same. Gas mileage and performance is also about the same. The Outback 2.5 is, in my opinion, a much better car than the 3.6. Mileage is better, reliability overall is much better. The 2.5i will, like the XC70, run forever.

The interior on the XC70 is, IMHO, much better than the Subarus. Volvos also never seem to rust (important if you keep the car forever like me) even in heavy salt-use areas. My 15 year old 960 has lived in heavy salt regions all its life and does not have a spot of rust on it, even underneath. Subarus do rust but not any more than other non-Volvos.

Volvos **may** be more expensive to repair but given my experience with my 960, XC90, and XC70 this hasn't been the case (nothing big has gone wrong). Subarus tend not to break in any big way either. Oil changes and brakes (if done at the dealership) is where you will notice the difference but I would not have Volvo do that work anyway. That being said, if you use the car in rough conditions in the middle of nowhere (rural Southwest, Alaska) a Subaru will be easier to get parts for. If you are based out of a city then there are no issues.

The performance of the Volvo 3.2 is absolutely fine. The T6 version is quicker (but not faster) but at a cost premium that I didn't feel was worth it. If I wanted a performance car I wouldn't buy either an XC70 or an Outback. I'd buy a MB CL65, which I did. That being said, I have driven the XC70 3.2 and the Subarus in the mountains of Colorado and Utah. The Volvo and Subaru 3.6 obviously had more power and had no issues with keeping up with traffic. The Subaru 2.5 was definitely slower but unless you live in Denver and drive into the mountains every day who cares? Tons of people drive older Outbacks and Legacys with 2.5s all day long in the mountains.

Chinese ownership of Volvo does not seem to have impacted the quality. The Chinese owners have made a point of not interferring with Volvo engineering or manufacturing and have been satisfied with infusing capital only (hence the new products such as XC60 hybrid, soon to be released XC30, etc).

My big issue with the current Subaru Outback is what they have done with the roof rack. Many buyers of Outbacks, including me, use the side rails to hold a Thule or Yakima roof rack. Older Subaru Outbacks, as well as the new Impreza (and of course the XC70), have strong, easily accessible roof rails that work great. The new Outback 'rack' follows the trend of others such as Nissan and is basically worthless. And its design prevents the installation of any other rack. That is the deal breaker with me. Until Subaru fixes this issue I would never recommend a new one to any of my friends. That being said, I would recommend a used example of the previous version of the Outback even if it has a few miles on it. Or buy a new Impreza.

 

Just to clarify comments about the Subaru Outback's roof rack.

Yakima makes an adaptor that replaces the Outback's moveable cross arms, creating a much stronger load carrier for Yakima crossbars. Check out the Yakima website.

I may be in the same position in comparing the Outback with the XC70. Thanks for the comments.

 

I've bought 2013 Subaru Outback Limited 3.6R with these options:
Body Side Molding
Rear Bumper Corner Moldings
Rear Bumper Cover
Splash Guards
Wheel Arch Molding Kit
Auto-Dimming Mirror with Compass
Cargo Net - Rear
Cargo Net - Rear Seat Back
Cargo Net - Rear Side Compartment
Rear Seat Back Protector
Dog Guard/Compartment Separator
All-Weather Floor Mats
Dual Zone Climate Control
Leather Seats
Metallic Paint
Cargo Tray
Cargo Cover

The previously noted shortcomings with the roof rack and handling were eliminated.
The roof rack was redesigned to allow wider cross bar span to carry longer items.
The suspension and body structure were redesigned to provide firmer ride with better cornering. Rear air vents were added in limited models.
It would cost me well into $40K to buy similarly configured FWD Volvo XC70 3.2 in comparison with around $30K price for AWD Subaru Outback Limited 3.6R. I'm getting much more for much less money!
When China took control over Volvo I thought that they should ease up their pricing a little bit to be more competitive.
Charging an extra $500 for metallic paint option is ridiculous by all accounts.
After all, XC70 is just a heavy, jacked up station wagon with underpowered engine sub-par mileage and a pretense of a luxury vehicle. It drives like a couch, corners and turns like a boat. The V/XC70 design is at least 15 years old. Get real Volvo!

 

I too am in the market for a new XC70 (my choice) vs XC60 (wife's choice).

FYI - the V/XC70 design is one of the best designed cars ever. Very robust, safe and reliable.
We have had tremendous luck with our 2000 S70 which we are taking back from our son and will keep as a 2nd car. 125K miles and virtually trouble free. Oil change every 3K miles and service by the book.

As far as maintaining any Volvo, after warranty expires,it is not very expensive if you find a good independent shop.

 

It all boils down to what you are going to be using your car for.
If you need a luxury, heavy and cushy grocery getter with limited semi-offroad wannabe capabilities, then get a Volvo XC70.
If you need more bang for your back as a semi-luxury, universal, reliable, real AWD, light, agile and powerful vehicle, then get a Subaru Outback 3.6R Limited.

 

Humbuster, both the XC60 and 70's are great vehicles. I guess it comes down to what you will need it for. The XC70 has more interior room and that may be what you are looking for, or not. If you do not need all that room or you just want the newer model I can say the XC60 has had great test reviews and top of the line crash test scores. You can't go wrong with either one in my opinion, I just bought a 13 XC70 T6 but also like the 60 very much too. Don't let Hunny Bunny sway you from buying an XC, she couldn't afford the T6 model and had to downgrade to a Subaru. Seems she may still be a bit angry after looking at her comments on the XC70.

Best of luck in your search!

 

Enjoy your Subaru. I'm kind of glad you bought one.

 

I just got a 2013 XC70 3.2, the volvo replaced a 2012 subaru outback 2.5 limited. The subaru was totaled from the sandy storm, car had 2800 miles on it..insurance reinbursed me 100%. Good opportunity to upgrade to a Volvo, and very happy I did. I had a 2005 outback that I loved, the 2012 was a fine car, but in my opinion they ruined what was so good about the outback by making it more of a SUV rather they a AWD wagon. The Subaru really messed up by increasing the height of the car and putting that rack that isn't good for anything. I had the yakima fit kit for the factory subauru rack, but that also raised the rack another couple inches..making it annoying to put bikes on the roof and other stuff. In the end, I am super happy with the drive of the volvo,and the height of the car is perfect. And the seats are the most comfortable car seats ever! I hope my rambiling helps....

 

Hello! I just purchased a 2013 Volvo XC60 T6, which I'm thrilled with thus far!

I am currently weighing the options for load bars to had a ski rack to the car, and am having trouble comparing the Volvo brand roof rails with the Thule AeroBlade options. In particular, my questions are at a comparison of noise as well as the clearance.

While the Volvo OEM bars are much more affordable, I have noticed that, at least in pictures, they look very high profile. Has anyone done similar research that might be able to weigh in, or even measure the clearance from roof to bottom of rails for either their Volvo or Thule bars?

Thanks everyone!

 

Interesting comparison.

I own a 2007 XC-70 AWD which gets 20 MPG.

It has a 2.5 Liter BMW 5-cylinder dual Turbo charged engine and 6 speed transmission. While it has sturdy luggage rack rails, it did not come with the cross pieces (weird omission). After some time problems, I would never buy the AWD again - FWD is just fine and gets better MPGs.

I borrowed a 2014 Subaru Forester 2.5i and I found is quite similar in many respects. It feels bigger inside and on the road, but drove well, got better MPG (24 MPG), but didn't accelerate as well or as smoothly as the Volvo.

The Subaru uses regular fuel (85 octane) and the Volvo needs 90 octane (usually, that the medium grade).

I found the Subaru Forester to be quite noise, particularly at highway speeds (more wind noise and a lot of tire noise). Handling was good, but slow responding and it tends to lean - you can feel the car leaning in turns.

Loading, I found the Subaru deck higher in the back, but about 6 inches shorter than the Volvo cargo area.

The interiors are vastly different in quality, sound proofing, controls, electronics, storage, and seat covers. There is no real comparison - Volvo is a luxury car in this respect and the Subaru is a utility vehicle (SUV).

The Volvo has a nicely integrated Bose audio system with bluetooth connectivity. The Subaru has some kind of generic radio and no bluetooth connectivity for my iPhone!?

The Volvo had seat heaters (std) and Subaru did not.
The Volvo had 19" mag rims and the Subaru had black steel rims.

The Volvo front seats move about 18" on it's tracks. The Subaru adjusts about 8". The Subaru seats were hard and spartan, the back seats were short and uncomfortable.

Under then hood, the Subaru was familiar looking parts, belts, hoses, etc., where the Volvo has almost nothing under the hood that I can recognize or work on, save the oil, water and windshield wiper fluid.

I'm 5'10" and I found the Volvo roof and sunroof easier to reach and clean.

I think the rack on the Forester was sturdy, but higher up and harder to reach.

I liked the styling of both cars, but the luxury of the Volvo is what costs more. It's a tighter feeling car and the only special electronics on it is the backup sensor.

I would like to have lane departure warning, blind spot warning, automatic braking, radar tracking, front bumper seniors, and a backup camera, too, but not until the next car. The Forester I drove did not have any of those features, either.

 

I just bought a 2011 T6 and pick it up tomorrow. It's pretty much fully optioned so it's a beautiful car for sure, but this is my first Volvo. I looked at updating my Subaru Outback but the Volvo was actually only a couple of thousand more expensive and was hugely nicer all around.

So obviously I'm hoping this will be a reliable car like the 2003 Subie has been (but it rusted away...).

 

One thing you can be sure of is that your Volvo won't rust away. I have owned and maintained two 740 models (250k and 300k and 20+ years on each) and my 2007 XC-70, without any rust problems! Hail damage, yes, but not rust.

Recently, I've been driving a 2010 RX-350, which I love on the highway and parking. But the Volvo is much more comfortable and the seats have better support, more range of motion, and better adjustments. The Volvo steering wheel is not as adjustable as the Lexus and the Lexus has cooled seats, in addition to the heating. The Volvo seats are better at heating and warm up faster. I recently drove through more than an hour of torrential heavy rain (4+ inches per hour) in Houston and the Lexus handled it very well. I have only driven my XC-70 in moderate rain, but was just as stable. Neither car hydroplaned, although they had plenty of opportunities.

The real test, however, is in the driving. The XC-70 glides over the road, but doesn't take bumps well. The Lexus is very stable, particularly on highway driving, where it doesn't drift and it takes potholes and speedbumps better than the Volvo. The Volvo has 17" wheels and the Lexus has 20".

My only advice is to choose FWD instead of AWD.