Thread Starter
TS
Other than reinforcing roofs for an ad back on the 70's, structural rigidity has bever been an issue. IMHO this is an attempt at "me too" styling.
Last edited:
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Volvo unveils the all new 2018 XC40- A dramatic departure from the from the status quo
- Thread starter Philpug
- Start date
I may be misunderstanding your post, but it seems to me If it weren't an issue, Volvo wouldn't be conducting rollover crash test for roof structural integrity and occupant saftey - However I can't imagine that wedge on the XC40 rear door adds much structurally to the roof, could possibly has another safety advantage in a side impact, idk.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2015
- Posts
- 8,480
Sorry, just not true in this case. Remember, Volvo is seriously -- and loudly -- stating that within a few years, you won't be able to get seriously injured in one of their cars in a crash.
Again, not my #1 priority, since they seem abundantly safe at this point. I'd like to see out the back!
Too bad the Grumpy Old Dude in me (get off my lawn!) is on his last Volvo, since I have no interest in a turbocharged, supercharged, 4-cylinder "fun" car!
Thread Starter
TS
Having spent 8 years with Volvo, selling over 1,000 of them and getting tours of their safety facility in Sweden. Compromising visability, which is active safety for a stying aspect is not what I expected from them. Volvo has always been at the forefront of designs that can disperse energy, a C-pillar that is as wide as this is not a positive in design, it is a negative. When we were shopping for our Alltrack, we looked at a few cars that had similar designs, all were immediately removed from our consideration when we realized that rearward and over the shoulder visability were compromises. Not everything can be seen from mirrors and sensors cannot detect all.
Many examples of vehicles that have horrific C-pilar design in terms of rearward visibility. Never ceases to amaze me. A few years ago we had a Toyota Venza rental for a week. Pretty neat vehicle in many ways, and completely ruined for us by the rear quarter visibility "blocks." Others have been mentioned above. For us, it's a factor.
To contrast that, a few weeks ago I helped a friend move a couple of his cars from a storage facility to a barn that he has finished renovating. I was able to drive his BMW 2002 about 15 miles. Fun car, always has been. So much to appreciate {I owned three different ones years ago}. What struck me most was the feeling that "Wow, the visibility in this thing is absolutely amazing!"
To contrast that, a few weeks ago I helped a friend move a couple of his cars from a storage facility to a barn that he has finished renovating. I was able to drive his BMW 2002 about 15 miles. Fun car, always has been. So much to appreciate {I owned three different ones years ago}. What struck me most was the feeling that "Wow, the visibility in this thing is absolutely amazing!"
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2015
- Posts
- 8,480
A bit short, no?
To be clear, this is in the context of an ongoing discussion @BGreen and I have been having about the vehicle that best matches my contradictory requirements. I'm 99.44% sure I will end up with a 2018 Outback Touring, pending the acquisition of employment.
Good luck with Outback3.6 liter 6 cylinder engine?
Well, duh! I can't imagine what I'd do with a non-turbo 4 cylinder. Probably quietly weep into my steering wheel.
I'm not even 100% sure that I will be as happy with the V6 as I have been with my little turbo (2008 Outback XT) driving up I-70 at altitude ...
LOL!
I did a test drive. Impreza new global platform not bad, step on the gas
, Crosstrek more of the same , Forester 2.0 Turbo, getting better but oh the body roll and I'm not a fan of SUV's, and the body roll , WRX 
now we're talking ... only a MPG or two off from 2.0 Turbo or 3.6 liter 6 but no hatchback and I really don't want salami wrapper tires for our messed up streets to destroy!
I stopped there.
Outback looked so big on the showroom floor
Liked it when masquerading as a sport wagon, now it's a SUV in disguise
Really, 90% of the time there is nothing wrong with my 130K miles 11year old Toyota which since new has and continues to cost very little to keep running. It's that 10% of the time tormenting me
At the very least, I'll wait until we have more info on the 2020 WRX.Sorry for the OT thread drift.
LOL!
I did a test drive. Impreza new global platform not bad, step on the gas
I stopped there.
Outback looked so big on the showroom floor
Liked it when masquerading as a sport wagon, now it's a SUV in disguise
Really, 90% of the time there is nothing wrong with my 130K miles 11year old Toyota which since new has and continues to cost very little to keep running. It's that 10% of the time tormenting me
Sorry for the OT thread drift.
I continue the OT ... I had a 2004 WRX. Loved it, but it really had some gearing/oomph issues on tight steep switchbacks where you need to go slow. In 2008 when I needed a new car, I was excited for the 2.5 turbo, but disgusted by the "standard Japanese car" look and the shrinking rear hatch. Thus the Outback purchase.
For what I need, the Outback is still the closest match - decent clearance, AWD/4WD, narrow enough for Boulder parking, low enough to allow some form of roof box, allows a hitch for a solid bike rack, room to shove the bike inside for security, roomy rear seats, and - critically - the Touring model has a heated steering wheel. Not to mention the price is very attractive compared to other vehicles that were close to my spec.
Thread Starter
TS
Take a look at the new Tiguan...I know two people who have them that have come from Subarus who are very happy.
What about this quote? "Unfortunately, the Tiguan also has some shortcomings that keep it from being a truly outstanding vehicle. There’s only one available engine, and it provides lethargic acceleration."
People also complain that it's hard to shove the mountain bike in the back. Deal killer.