What happened to the non-turbo S60?
#1
05-16-2007, 01:43 AM
What happened to the non-turbo S60?
So I've decided on the S60 and now I'm holding out for the best deal I can find on a non-turbo basic model with the right color combination. My main criteria was, believe it or not, dual a/c because the fights I have with my wife over the temp made trips miserable.
I originally decided on a 2005 and above because I like the small changes in the body and interior. I would have considered a 2006 or 2007 but, after going to different dealers, I find out that 2005 was the last year they made the non-turbo S60 - what gives?
I haven't found out why, but I'm curious.
To me, the non-turbo seems like the best deal around - good price, simple time-tested engine without turbo complications, solid 5-speed transmission, leather, dual a/c, moonroof, and no absolutely crappy soft-touch interior controls that peel off and make a car look junky after a few years like Audi, Saab, VW, etc... The only other car with the same simple mechanics and semi-luxury additions is the Acura TSX (am I missing something?). But the S60 is more unique and I'm convinced that the non-turbo version will be a great daily-driver that will last a long time.
Does anyone know why Volvo decided to only offer turbos from 2006 on?
I originally decided on a 2005 and above because I like the small changes in the body and interior. I would have considered a 2006 or 2007 but, after going to different dealers, I find out that 2005 was the last year they made the non-turbo S60 - what gives?
I haven't found out why, but I'm curious.
To me, the non-turbo seems like the best deal around - good price, simple time-tested engine without turbo complications, solid 5-speed transmission, leather, dual a/c, moonroof, and no absolutely crappy soft-touch interior controls that peel off and make a car look junky after a few years like Audi, Saab, VW, etc... The only other car with the same simple mechanics and semi-luxury additions is the Acura TSX (am I missing something?). But the S60 is more unique and I'm convinced that the non-turbo version will be a great daily-driver that will last a long time.
Does anyone know why Volvo decided to only offer turbos from 2006 on?
#2
05-16-2007, 01:59 PM
RE: What happened to the non-turbo S60?
ORIGINAL: zippy753
So I've decided on the S60 and now I'm holding out for the best deal I can find on a non-turbo basic model with the right color combination. My main criteria was, believe it or not, dual a/c because the fights I have with my wife over the temp made trips miserable.
I originally decided on a 2005 and above because I like the small changes in the body and interior. I would have considered a 2006 or 2007 but, after going to different dealers, I find out that 2005 was the last year they made the non-turbo S60 - what gives?
I haven't found out why, but I'm curious.
To me, the non-turbo seems like the best deal around - good price, simple time-tested engine without turbo complications, solid 5-speed transmission, leather, dual a/c, moonroof, and no absolutely crappy soft-touch interior controls that peel off and make a car look junky after a few years like Audi, Saab, VW, etc... The only other car with the same simple mechanics and semi-luxury additions is the Acura TSX (am I missing something?). But the S60 is more unique and I'm convinced that the non-turbo version will be a great daily-driver that will last a long time.
Does anyone know why Volvo decided to only offer turbos from 2006 on?
So I've decided on the S60 and now I'm holding out for the best deal I can find on a non-turbo basic model with the right color combination. My main criteria was, believe it or not, dual a/c because the fights I have with my wife over the temp made trips miserable.
I originally decided on a 2005 and above because I like the small changes in the body and interior. I would have considered a 2006 or 2007 but, after going to different dealers, I find out that 2005 was the last year they made the non-turbo S60 - what gives?
I haven't found out why, but I'm curious.
To me, the non-turbo seems like the best deal around - good price, simple time-tested engine without turbo complications, solid 5-speed transmission, leather, dual a/c, moonroof, and no absolutely crappy soft-touch interior controls that peel off and make a car look junky after a few years like Audi, Saab, VW, etc... The only other car with the same simple mechanics and semi-luxury additions is the Acura TSX (am I missing something?). But the S60 is more unique and I'm convinced that the non-turbo version will be a great daily-driver that will last a long time.
Does anyone know why Volvo decided to only offer turbos from 2006 on?
#3
05-17-2007, 12:46 PM
RE: What happened to the non-turbo S60?
I only took it for a short test-drive around the blockand it didn't seem any worse than an Accord or Camry. I ride a sport bike for adrenalin rushes.[/align][/align]It seems reasonable that it's a marketing decision - there really aren't many Euro cars without turbo. VW, Audi, Saab all throw on turbos that increase pressure in the engine and decrease reliability. I've heard that Volvo turbos are more reliable, but not sure it's true.[/align]
#4
05-24-2007, 02:35 PM
RE: What happened to the non-turbo S60?
I test drove a non-turbo one when I was in the market for my S60. It was a slug: way too slow and unresponsive around town. I hated it. Then I test-drove the 2.5T I eventually bought and the difference is huge. Much more responsive and enjoyable to drive.
I think the S60 is too heavy a car for the mere 168HP that the non-turbo provides.
I think the S60 is too heavy a car for the mere 168HP that the non-turbo provides.
#5
05-24-2007, 04:01 PM
RE: What happened to the non-turbo S60?
ORIGINAL: salhany
I test drove a non-turbo one when I was in the market for my S60. It was a slug: way too slow and unresponsive around town. I hated it. Then I test-drove the 2.5T I eventually bought and the difference is huge. Much more responsive and enjoyable to drive.
I think the S60 is too heavy a car for the mere 168HP that the non-turbo provides.
I test drove a non-turbo one when I was in the market for my S60. It was a slug: way too slow and unresponsive around town. I hated it. Then I test-drove the 2.5T I eventually bought and the difference is huge. Much more responsive and enjoyable to drive.
I think the S60 is too heavy a car for the mere 168HP that the non-turbo provides.
I mean I went from a 1995 850 NA to a 1999 s70 awd (Which has a tiny 13g turbo in it), and the difference was night and day.
I wont go back to NA if at all possible. I suggest going turbo.
#6
05-24-2007, 05:55 PM
#7
06-08-2007, 08:13 PM
RE: What happened to the non-turbo S60?
I am a 19 yr old volvo driver. I have driven volvos all my life due to my parents loving them. i used to drive a 1995 850 which was a nice sedan but now that im drivin a S60 2.5T i love it. the turbo just adds to the drive. so i dont think anyone is talking poorly about the non turbo's, i think everyone is saying that turbo adds to the drive and without it a volvo is just heavy and sluggy. so i say go with the turbo.
#8
06-09-2007, 01:47 AM
RE: What happened to the non-turbo S60?
I hear what everyone is saying about the extra power the turbo affords - but I learned my lesson when my Audi's turbo went out. I live about 4 miles from work and spend most of my time within Los Angeles' city limits. These short trips, not really warming up the engine properly, I understand are really tough on a turbo. It's rare for me to get up to 65mph most of the time. I'll get on the freeway maybe once a week for a few short miles.
So I really don't need extra power just to drive around the city. I don't really mind not having power when going outside the city because usually I'm in leisure mode anyway and don't need to race around.
In other parts of the country it's nice to have extra power to accelerate onto on-ramps, past trucks, and through big intersections. But in metropolitan areas like LA, it's just not necessary to have a turbo and it's a problem waiting to happen. I want to keep a car for a long time with less maintence.
So I really don't need extra power just to drive around the city. I don't really mind not having power when going outside the city because usually I'm in leisure mode anyway and don't need to race around.
In other parts of the country it's nice to have extra power to accelerate onto on-ramps, past trucks, and through big intersections. But in metropolitan areas like LA, it's just not necessary to have a turbo and it's a problem waiting to happen. I want to keep a car for a long time with less maintence.
#9
06-11-2007, 11:20 PM
RE: What happened to the non-turbo S60?
I love my S60 NA. 168 hp does the trick, especially when I'm barreling down the road at 80 without the two front doors :-). The 5 speed is solid and geared well, a great car all around. I would like to get the trim matching, however. The NA is very reliable, and has plenty of space under the hood for a turbo if I want to put my fabrication skills to the test. The turbo does add a HUGE difference. I drove a new 2.5T and that thing felt like a rocket. My S60 still smokes the **** out of my friends jettas, accords, priuses...haha...they're all automatics, though...
#10
06-14-2007, 04:14 PM
RE: What happened to the non-turbo S60?
I have s60 NA + 5 speed auto. This is aaa surprisingly good car.
I bought it because … it does NOT have Turbo.
S60Rs are much better and more expensive at the same time.
Light turbo not much difference in HP ….
Yes it is slow it cannot beat my Explorer sport… but at the same time it is fairly fast 8.0- 9.0 0-60
I am not sure if I want more power with FW if I do power brake lunch it will spin the wheels.(and at that point I just hate it)
High speed driving just perfect…
MPG - very good
City driving – enough power for the “crazy driving”…
Why NA is slow:
1. clogged air filter (K&N or better )
2. Non Synthetic oil (synthetic will reduce friction )
3. Exhaust could help but I cannot find silent exhaust system and I hate to sound as a performance car and at the same time be a turtle
4. Transmission fluid too old (I like synthetic fluid it helps with fast shifts)
5. 87 – octane (91-93 will be better for the timing adjustment)
I bought it because … it does NOT have Turbo.
S60Rs are much better and more expensive at the same time.
Light turbo not much difference in HP ….
Yes it is slow it cannot beat my Explorer sport… but at the same time it is fairly fast 8.0- 9.0 0-60
I am not sure if I want more power with FW if I do power brake lunch it will spin the wheels.(and at that point I just hate it)
High speed driving just perfect…
MPG - very good
City driving – enough power for the “crazy driving”…
Why NA is slow:
1. clogged air filter (K&N or better )
2. Non Synthetic oil (synthetic will reduce friction )
3. Exhaust could help but I cannot find silent exhaust system and I hate to sound as a performance car and at the same time be a turtle
4. Transmission fluid too old (I like synthetic fluid it helps with fast shifts)
5. 87 – octane (91-93 will be better for the timing adjustment)
#12
06-14-2007, 07:31 PM
RE: What happened to the non-turbo S60?
I think that 95 percent of people will like more HP, therefore NA had to be discontinued.
… reliability is not important at this point.
…Personally I do not want this car to be fast I bought it for my wife but in 1.5years my daughter will drive it.
Do I want fast 0-60s?(No)
… reliability is not important at this point.
…Personally I do not want this car to be fast I bought it for my wife but in 1.5years my daughter will drive it.
Do I want fast 0-60s?(No)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
