bing330i

Hi, I am debating if I should get a 20004 XC70 for $28-29k or so or a 2003 Mercedez C240 wagon for $25k, for Metro DC use. Both are less than 10k miles and similar options (except the C has no AWD). My thinking is the XC70 is bigger, but it may repeat the path of Audi Allroad (eventually decommissioned), newer model of XC70 will come sooner than the C class. I do not know which one is more reliable. In consumer reports XC70 ranks better than the C.

Even for a C wagon with AWD, how much do you think the price difference is justified between a XC70 and C240 wagon?

Your insight would be appreciated.

vadim

I would go with the Brick (brick = Volvo - for those not familiar with Vo-vos ). The engine is hands down better, quick off the line and very capable at speed. Its performance exceeds the paper figures big time. Easily tunable by chipping (~30-40 hp for some $500).

Plus, you get a lot of cargo room compared to the C240. The seats are much better, too (praised even on a BMW board - a rare thing on its own).

Volvo's current P2 platform has a fairly good reliability record. Volvo had its bad times in late 90s with its notirious S/V/C70 series - looks like they have learned their lesson very well.

Rick

I concur with Vadim.
The Volvo is the better people hauler, with more interior space and shoulder/head room. The C240 wagon feels underpowered until you hit highway speeds, at whichpoint it's capable for that cause.
The Volvo has better gearing for low end torque and that steps it up to speed faster then the C240. OC Ca doesn't see much in the way of hazardous winter weather, so I'm not sure how important AWD is to you. It's safer and more stabile...but it also hogs gas more than conventional RWD. \I don't know if you're planning any winter trips to the mountains....but the AWD will certainly give you the ability to spontaneously decide that.

akbro93704

Volvo all the way. It has more room, more power, and better build quality than the C240. You'll be much happier with the torque in the turbocharged I-5 than the lazy feeling V6 in the C240. The only problem I've ever read about in the XC70 is that it has loud OEM tires(Pirelli Scorpion STR),which isn't a reliability issue. Volvo's don't have the "prestige" of a Mercedes, but you'll be much happier with it.

bing330i

Thanks, Vadim, Rick, AKbro. Sounded like MBZ owners did not want me back to the family :-) I will explore the XC70 then. Thanks.

Rick, I just moved from OC to Metro DC area and sold our old SL in search of a new wagon for winter. I just changed my profile to reflect the change. Thank you.

Buellwinkle

I would go with Ford's other line, the Jaguar X-Type Sportwagon, very sharp looking, awd standard and a nicer grade of leather on the seats. I had both MB and Volvo but I can tell you there's no comparison. The Volvos just don't hold up over time, doesn't mean they won't last for a long time but they seem to deteriorate quicker than many cars, even american cars. I had a W201 that was driven 200K miles within the family and the interior and paint finish were still good. We had a Volvo station wagon and with 3-4 years we had trim falling off, what didn't fall off was fading and deteriorating even though it was garage kept. We also had friends loyal to Volvos that have noticed the quality and dependability slide with the V70 over their 850 wagon.

Then the next thing I would look at is a slightly older C320 over a newer C240 for the same price, or the same age C320 for slightly more. The performance difference is dramatic and I think you will enjoy the C320 wagon more but the C240 is still a very adequate station wagon.

vadim

Oh, forgot to mention - Volvo's audio system is fantastic. Even the basic setup puts both MB's Bose and HK to shame.

vadim

Carl,

C'mon- Volvo has never had anything to do with Ford production-wise, unlike Jaguar, whose X-type is a redressed Ford Mondeo.

Also, not sure what V70 you are talking about - likely '98-'00, which was the worst time for Volvo, as I mentioned in my previous post. Now, the current platform is a totally different thing, much improved in every aspect.

That said - I own a '98 S70GLT (note the year - 1st MY for S70), and this car is just as solid at 70+kmi as it was when new. It did have its share of problems, but they all were taken care of under warranty, and none of them were safety issues, but minor things like squeaks, switches, bulb sockets (very much the same stuff newer MBs are known to have issues with). It has been very reliable since. Its paint is holding up much better than my '02 Benz (which, sadly, already has some signs of rust on the hood around stone chip spots).

This Volvo has also been the best bad weather vehicle I have owned. If anything, I would certainly trust the Swedes more that anyone when it comes to driving in winter. This car warms up in a blink when it is cold outside, with the windscreen, the rear window and the side mirrors perfectly clean.

That said, I still enjoy my Coupe a lot, it sure is more fun to drive (after all mods done). Too bad they are discontinuing C Class hatchbacks in the US

wblynch

The same old, uneducated diatribe. The X-type shares a floor pan with the European Ford Mondeo and very little else, yet ignorant people keep repeating misinformation.

Having owned a Jaguar X-Type I can say that it is a fabulous car. Its entire body structure, interior, sheet metal thickness and paint quality has nothing in common with European Ford. It has its own, fully independant aluminum suspension, all-wheel drive system, electronics, steering, transmission and, except for the basic block, a fully Jaguar engineered engine with unique cylinder heads and injection system.

That being said, we own and drive a C240 Wagon, 2004.5. It has plenty of power for Southern California freeways and is very happy being driven at 85 and above. Although we don't really drive above the prevalent speed of traffic.

The Volvo may offer more room, but the C240 is a great car and it shakes that SUV soccer mom image. I would imagine the C240 gets better gas mileage than the Volvo XC90. We are averaging about 25mpg on ours.

The C240 Wagon is also a very quiet car that does a great job of insulating road and wind noise.

Sport Wagons are a huge trend and people are tiring of the SUV thing.

wblynch

Excuse me, I see now that the OP refers to the XC70, not the XC90.

In that case it's a tougher choice. I do like the C240 better though because of the over use of truck-looking grey plastic on the Cross Country.

Buellwinkle

I agree, it is cheezy looking, but really, if looks weren't important, the Subaru Legacy Wagon with 250 HP is great. Had it on a track and it outhandled outperformed the BMW 3 wagon. The downside is that it's almost as ugly as the Volvo XC70 but at least it doesn't have the plastic cladding, the same sort of body cladding that people complained about on the Pontiac Aztec and Subaru Outback. And yes, the Volvo's are as much a part of Ford as Jaguar. To think that there isn't some Ford parts bin sharing on the Volvo is just being naive, just like there's parts bin sharing between MB and Chrysler, some they admit to, some they don't.

vadim

Well, it is a fact that X-type is based on Ford Mondeo. They share the same platform - that means something, like it or not. It is even offered in FWD version in Europe. I sure admit that Jag engineers have done an excellent job stuffing Mondeo with a lot of nice things to make the X-type, but they made a fundamental mistake by choosing a Ford platform. Now, no matter how good the X-type is, it will always be a victim of the comparison "Ford-Jaguar", just like "Toyota-Lexus" or "Honda-Acura".

vadim

While I agree that the plastic parts on the XC70 are not the best looking thing on a car, they have a purpose. If you do a lot of off-road/bad road driving, the car sooner or later will get chipped. Replacing the plastic panels is quicker and less expensive than fixing dents and repainting the body.

wblynch

You must pride yourself on perpetuating ignorance.

A floor pan does not a whole car make. The entire body structure of the X-Type above the floor is Jaguar built and engineered.

I guess in your mind, if a Mansion has a plywood floor and a condominium has a plywood floor then a mansion is only a condominium stuffed with nice things.

Hmmmm.... I sure hope you are not an architect.

vadim

Sorry to hurt your ego, but what would a phrase "built on a platform" mean in your highly educated mind? Or is it a product of ill imagination of scores of ignorant auto writers?

vadim

"...The X-Type, a compact sedan that will be Jaguar's rival for the BMW 3-Series and Mercedes-Benz C-Class, has a base price of $29,950, some $14,000 less than any of Jaguar's current models. While that will put the brand within reach of more buyers, some question the pedigree of the X-Type because it is based on the front-wheel-drive platform for the Mondeo, a family sedan..."

"...Jaguar's least-expensive car is virtually unchanged for 2003. The X-Type is based on the European Mondeo sedan from Jaguar-parent Ford, though it has its own styling, dimensions, and comes standard with all-wheel drive vs. Mondeo's front-wheel drive. Rival Audi, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz models offer AWD at extra cost. ..."

"...There's a lot riding on the new Jaguar X-Type, a car with which the British automaker hopes to more than double its worldwide volume. With a base of $29,950, it will enter the U.S. market at less than half the price of the marque's flagship XJ sedan. To get there, Jaguar depended heavily on the help of its parent, Ford Motor Co., borrowing both engineering assistance-as well as 20 percent of its components from the decidedly downmarket Ford Mondeo. ..."