Two new, performance-oriented Volvo models made their North American debut at the Chicago Auto Show.
Billed as the S60 Polestar and V60 Polestar, the bespoke aerodynamic pieces set them apart from your parents’ V60 or S60. Handling is further improved by a combination of high-performance shock absorbers and stiffer springs. Tucked neatly behind the Polestar exclusive 20-inch wheels are Brembo brakes. Polestar models will only be offered in Sapphire Black or Rebel Blue.
The turbocharged, 3.0-liter inline six boasts 345 hp and 369 lb-ft of torque capable of sub-5 second 0-60 times. These numbers are achieved via a new twin-scroll turbocharger, a larger intercooler, a 2.5-inch exhaust system and special ECU tweaks. The only available transmission is a six-speed automatic wih steering wheel mounted paddle shifters.
With only 120 examples slated for our shores, we expect Volvo will have no problem selling every one before they’re scheduled to hit select dealerships this June. Additional information, including pricing, is to be announced.
Is the Chicago car show bigger than Detroit? It seems as though there are more new models being shown in Chicago this year.
These are the only good looking vehicles shown off so far. The Chevy van is just a special NV200, the Navigator, eh, the Toyota TRD looks good on the 4Runner and Tacoma, but ugly on the Tundra, I gave my thoughts on the Legacy, and the Soul EV…
Cringes, screams, and falls over.
“With only 120 examples slated for our shores, we expect Volvo will have no problem selling every one before they’re scheduled to hit select dealerships this June”
There are 120 people still interested in Volvo? Might be overly optimistic.
Looking at the final shot of all of the cars lined up in blue I can’t help but think, gosh what a trainwreck this brand has become.
They will all be sedans
Where did you see this?
They will be selling in Australia as well.In fact we were first on the list. Volvo actually does sell cars here.
I can’t help but think “So theres 120 people with wads of cash who DON’T know about Audi?”.
Seeing the cars lined up just confuses me on which model is which, the colors nice though.
Transaction prices *should* be significantly cheaper than a similarly equipped S4, although the limited production may change that. Certainly they are for “regular” S60 R-Designs.
I think I’d rather have the S60 anyway for better seats and reduced douche factor.
I’d rather have the V60 myself, the problem is that from what I know, the SV60 Polestars demand the front wheels to deal with all 350+ horses which to me sounds like a serious tire eater.
On the other hand, a similar S4 has Audis advanced Synchro 4WD system to distribute the power so you can use the power better.
I won’t argue about seats though, Saab and Volvo pretty much mastered the art of proper automotive seat design.
As far as “douche factor” goes, I guess that varies upon location.
Nope, all T6 Volvos ever are AWD. The AWD system is Haldex, so inferior to Audi’s, but it’s much better than front-drive alone.
+1 – I bought a 2014 S60 basically because it was more comfortable than the A4 Avant I test drove, and also because everyone and their dog seems to drive an Audi. To me, Audi is to the 2000s what BMW was to the 1980s-90s (when BMW came into its own as the yuppie vehicle of choice). Don’t get me wrong, I think Audis and BMWs are great cars, but I’m rooting for there to be alternatives like Volvo.
Me too. The current S60 is a nicer car than the current A4. And that T6 is a monster motor – more power and torque than the blown S4.
I’m not sure I buy that. Remember the regular V60 goes up to 55k.
I stand corrected then, Haldex is good enough for me.
I still want my square factor though.
@Ryoku75: C30, C30, S60, S60, V60, S60. HTH!
I don’t get the “train wreck” sentiment. I really like the V60 wagon and XC60, and think they are competitively priced with the German competition. I have and 3 Modern Volvos (2001, 2004, 2011) and loved them all. Still have the 2011 and am thinking about upgrading. I like the ride and interior comfort much better that the German offerings, and I believe the reliability and warranty is better as well. I can understand why someone may not want one, but I don’t get “train wreck”?
I really like that wagon (except for the center stack and the behind-seat net). I probably won’t pull the trigger on it, though.
I have concerns if Volvo will continue to be viable in the US, but I don’t get the train wreck thing, either.
I’ve driven old world and new world Volvos, and own a 240. Although I do not specifically dislike the “new world” Volvos, I look at the lineup and all of the cars are pretty much the same save the C30 and XC90. Volvo certainly in all years and iterations has some nice features but the basic small FWD 300hp fuel inefficient car really does not appeal to me or most others, even if they can handle torque steer. The true bricks despite model or drive-train were unique and it showed, but once everything starts to look and drive like a hopped up Swedish Camcord it ceases to be relevant. The Germans can get away with lease only garbage because of perceived prestige, heritage, and/or driving dynamics. I want something in between the Volvo of old and something new. A car I could buy new and be proud to pass through the family for many years and 150K+, as well as not being bankrupted by repair bills. The last S60 I sampled (an 04) drove not much better than a gen 1 Fusion, and the last S80 felt heavy in drive and steering, and both were forgettable while guzzling [premium] gas like a V8. I might buy one of these “new world” Volvos eventually but I can assure you it will be long after steep depreciation has set in. Chrysler under Sergio has been able to come up with an impressive lineup based on the technology, platforms, and time allotted to them. Volvo has been free of Ford for some time and I have yet to see anything compelling from the brand, or even threats of anything compelling. The brand is a train wreck and until they find ways to offer something other than the same EUCD platform Xeroxed a few times I see no reason to spend money on new models.
I look at the Audi line up and see the same car in different lengths – talk about xeroxing. The last S60 you sampled was an 04? I think you should at least drive a 2011+ before declaring train wreck. Now, I definitely agree that the BRAND (from a marketing perspective) is a train wreck…
yeah, the 11+ S60 is a whole different animal. Good interior, great power in T5 or T6, competitive pricing, interesting looks.
Those old S60’s were nice in their own way but the new one is leagues ahead.
So because “Audi” does it, that makes it right?
I’m sure its a nice car but small FWDs all have a similar feel. I’m not seeing a reason to spend the kind of money they ask for the type of car they are selling, and if lease only junk is what they want to peddle there are a whole host of other brands selling the same thing. If you drive an S60 and think its the cats tats great, Volvo has a whole host of other reshaped models which will feel exactly the same say. But if you don’t what’s compelling in the brand?
Did the S80 actually have a V8 and you just didn’t notice?!
S80 is a bigger S60. This isn’t necessarily a drive-train thing, its a product thing. Toyota reuses its Camry platform on a number of models, and while even an ordinary person might have been aware ES350 was an upmarket Camry (until recently) they may not be aware Highlander and RX330 shared the platform too. Volvo isn’t doing this, S60 and 80 look about the same and always have, new V60 is an S60 hatch masquerading as a pseduo-wagon. XC60 looks a little more like XC90, but comparing it to an S80 and you can see the similarities. Because of Ford mismanagement nearly all Volvo products are EUCD platform, each with a slight variation, but unlike Toyota its not hidden well. If you like this platform great you’ve got some variety to choose from. If you don’t you’re SOL and that’s the problem.
Here is the model listing from Wikipedia, I’m not sure if C30/C70 are still in production for Euro only sales. Volvo P1 platform IS the Ford C1 platform.
—–
As of January 2012, all coupes (C30 and C70) are based on Volvo P1 small car platform.
Small Cars (Ford C1 platform)
Volvo V40 2012–present (M/Y 2013–)
Large Cars (Ford D3 platform)
Volvo XC90 2002–present (M/Y 2003–)
Large Cars (Ford EUCD platform)
Volvo S60 2010– (M/Y 2011-)
Volvo V60 2010– (M/Y 2011-)
Volvo S80 2006–present (M/Y 2007–)
Volvo V70 2007–present (M/Y 2008–)
Volvo XC60 2008–present (M/Y 2009–)
Volvo XC70 2007–present (M/Y 2008–)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_cars
I can only recommend one of the last 940’s to try out, or MAYBE a 2000’s W Body Impala before the sad Accord treatment. I see S70’s from time to time too.
But I too wish that once my 240 goes kaput (when I’m 79), thar I could get a modern alternative. I’m willing to bet the 240 was rememberd more and outsold the 740 due to its distinct, but traditional look. The 740 was more corporate, focus testing yadda yadda, ended up looking like a box Crown Vic.
I’m not saying that because Audi does it (same sausage, different lengths), it’s a good thing. I’m saying that calling Volvo a train wreck for doing it is unfair.
To be fair to your point, Volvo cars has a bunch of stuff to sort out. I say bring more wagons (V40) and see if they can bring some distinctive volvo designs to the table that show they’re not just in survival mode but want to make something unique (maybe even go back to boxier form factors).
lol – “cats tats” –
side note: what the heck is up with the reply buttons? weird placement when the thread goes a couple of levels (at least on Chrome). 2nd edit: Guessing it’s to prevent deep nested comments…
Volvo is a train wreck because it became a one trick pony for so long, only a matter of time before people grow weary of it. This problem is mostly the result of Ford’s mismanagement but in the few years Geely has owned the company I have yet to see an indication of change. I’m not privy to the details of the sale but I’m sure Ford will only license their platforms to Geely for so long. What will Geely/Volvo do when this period expires?
My brother’s term.
Try FF, I’m not seeing the behavior you describe.
@28-cars;
Based on your posted I understand why you would say the brand is a train wreck for you. And that may also be true from an industry perspective. But I take issue with one aspect of your line of reasoning, which is to look at a brand as a whole and label the “brand” as a whole as ….whatever. You seem to be doing that here, and I see quite a few auto industry magazines and bloggers fall into the same pointless trap. The problem with looking at a brand as a whole, is that it has no meaning from a consumer perspective. When consumers shop for vehicles, they almost always have a vehicle type in mind. And if brand x offers a competitive vehicle of that type, that is all the consumer cares about. What the BRAND offers to me is pointless as a consumer. I am not buying a showroom full of cars. I am buying one car. If brand x has one car that fits my criteria, then brand x’s car is on my shopping list. Whether they offer 0, 1 or 5 other cars that are based on the same platform or use the same engine is of no interest.
So from what I’m reading essentially you (and many others) fall into the category of buying the model based on its features, price, and how it meets your needs?
Absolutely. People buy cars, not Brands. As a consumer shopping for a 4 door AWD sedan, I couldn’t care less if a brand offers a sports car, pickup truck, bulldozer, and CUV in addition. Why would that matter to any consumer. A brand is of interest to me if they make what I need / want.
While this is certainly a valid thought process, I personally cannot even relate to mode of thinking you describe. I think in a way you are at least describing the mentality of a disposable society (I buy this product for this purpose for this price, and just sell it/get rid of it when I’m through. This type of thinking also goes against Volvo’s product line from the beginning until the Ford buyout). I like many others have purchased some products solely on features or more often need/price, but these items are mostly cheap and truly disposable (i.e. a toaster). I personally do not think a twenty or thirty thousand dollar outlay is cheap nor should it be in any way disposable, which is why I dig deep into the brand, its history, technical data on the model’s platform and drivetrain. You might look at a Volvo S60 and think “This car comes with AWD, four doors, and X other interior features, and my wife likes the seats” I look at it and think “This is an EUCD platform automobile of X length and Y size, with Z interior room, and comes equipped with a four or five cylinder inline gas motor and automatic transmission. This car will have X type of handling, but FCP Groton sells an aftermarket swaybar to tighten it up. Service is required at the 50K, 70K, and 90K marks, timing belt cost is 5 man hours and X for the belt. I should be able to get ten years/120K out of it with room for 50K more. If I am not confident in this, I should keep looking elsewhere” Yes I seriously analyze it this much. I think in some cases branding sells the car in lieu of data, especially in shop queen brands and also the new wave of low[er] priced luxury brand (i.e. Benz CLA).
That is an incredible tangent. The discussion was based on you claiming Volvo is a train wreck, and your justification for that claim based on platforms, etc. etc, (see your posts above). My point is that a reasonable and sensible consumer will buy a car for the car, and not the fact the manufacturer if said car bases most of its offerings on a given “platform”. If the the platform works for you, so what if most of their cars are based on it or not? Who said anything about disposable, etc.?
I think about many of those other factors as well, which is one of the reasons I have bought Volvos. I really like the cars, and all the maintenance including oil changes etc. are paid for for 60,000 miles. I then have bought an extended warranty for about $900 that covers anything that goes wrong until 100,000. It adds up to a great car and a great, low risk value for me. I am looking at another one now not to replace the one I have, but another car that isn’t a Volvo. I don’t claim anyone else should like what I like, but I do think that calling Volvo a “train wreck” is absolutely weird and based on a line of logic that has no place for an actual thoughtful consumer.
I recall reading somewhere else that they’re going to be available in Electric Silver and White too.
I want one, but not enough to have to pay full price plus. Who pays list price for a Volvo, much less ADM? I know I didn’t.
They become good ebay finds later, don’t worry about them now.
I would love a Polestar S60 in black.
But buying extremely limited-production cars is just a huge hassle. You have to be in the market at exactly the right time and you have to somehow convince the dealer that if they don’t sell this example to you it is going to sit on their lot for 9 months. If your sales job is unsuccessful you pay way too much.
So I doubt I’ll bite.
Anyone remember the Saab Turbo X?
yup, i saw a black auto Turbo X sedan at C&C this weekend, parked with the other Saabs. Neat car.
I see a Mazda 3 in the sedan on left picture of the second row.
I see a lot of Volvo in the new Mazda 6
Yes, their silhouette’s & some character lines are very similar.
“Rebel Blue.”
I prefer to call it “Airplane Toilet Water Blue.”
Polestar?
I thought that was a name for a stripper.
Beat me to it.
I was trying to date this girl, but I’m pretty sure she used to be a polestar.
I like to lease a stripped down Polestar. The 2nd owner is welcome to deal with maintenance drama.
The S60 may be the best-looking sedan on the road.
I love it that Volvo managed to fit a transverse I-6 under the hood – the only modern mfr to do so, I think.
As for the Polestar series, I’d settle for the regular S60 T6, but they’re pretty pricey and too small inside. And a definite NO to a 5-cylinder – any 5-cylinder.
What’s the issue with 5 cylindres? Their sound and torquiness is hard to beat unless we talk V8.
Personally, I can’t stand the lumpy sound. I’ll take a 4 over a 5 any day. To me, a 5 is an engine that say it doesn’t know what it wants to be – so compromises were made to be more than a 4 but less than a 6.
I agree with you that building a 5 usually seems like a goofball split-the-baby decision by a committee, but Volvo’s turbo 5 is a *really* good engine. It has what seem like bottomless reserves of midrange torque and near-I-6 smoothness. You should try a (pre-DriveE) S60 T5 just for grins.
The 5cyl in my 5000 was less than impressive. NVH, not a lot of power, and everything’s an odd number.
yeah but that was like… 25 years ago at the newest. The 5000 was a cool car but that’s ancient.
I’ve driven (and owned) a couple five bangers.
W124 300D- awful, but it had 200k plus on it and ran fine
Volvo 850- owned a non turbo, driven a few turbos – great motors, if a bit weird sounding
Acura 2.5TL – just as smooth as their fours
VW Jetta 2.5 – owned. Great torque, no high rpm breathing like the Volvo motor though
GMC Colorado – thrummy and rough but tons of power
5000 CS Quattro Turbo – 2.2 10v turbo. Biblical turbo lag, vibration through shifter and steering rack, but plenty of speed!
Volvo has simply lost their way with their brand direction (as VW is starting to). They used to be conservative, tank-like cars and wagons known for comfort and durability. Closest positioning today might be Subaru. Then they decided to fancy themselves as BMW/Audi/Mercedes competitors. They just can’t play with the big boys. Their dismal sales prove that. They need to reconsider where the brand is going, before it’s too late.
That’s what happens when a brand tries to stay alive by switching from being an innovator into a follower. Volvo seems kind of mainstream these days anyway. You can say the same about the modern Subaru and their direction too.
What’s even more interesting is how all European brands now seem to have the same sloped side hood profile design.
Give this man a hammer, he’s nailed it.
Volvos were bought by people who wanted to feel safe. Now that every car comes with 2 dozen air bags, traction control, abs, and in more expensive cars auto braking systems, it’s hard to retain the “safest car” niche for yourself. They’re hoping sport-luxury will work. The right advertising campaign and pricing may get them there, but it’s a crowded field. If they could combine that with the legend of reliability/longevity the older Volvos were known for (and the current german cars are not) they might survive.
I know that every modern car has a bunch of airbags, etc. but not every car gets 5 stars across the board in every safety test. I would also trust (hope?) Volvo thinks of safety tests that other manufacturers haven’t even thought of yet. If I’m going to be traveling at 80+ mph on public roads where you can never predict what’s going to happen, I’d rather have the absolute safest car I can get (yeah, I know technically that would probably be some sort of armored hummer…).
I think there’s a difference between proactively focusing on safety and just checking off a government-defined safety list.
Exactly.
The safest car angle is not valid any longer. Even base model Hyundais come with most (or all) of the safety features the the top of the line Volvo from 5 – 10 years ago. These new Volvos look really good but if the marketing fails and no one knows about them, they won’t sell.
What modern car can you hoot around on gravest roads without tearing expensive trim off or breaking the computer?
Real Volvos were more truck than car with their off roadability, if Volvo were still inventive they’d be making rally cars and road cars that could take a few hits, and they’d look something like Ford Flex’s.
Bingo – sadly that ship has sailed. Soccer Mom’s do not drive on gravel, only finely shifted crusted stone.
I once looked for a 90-92 vintage 245 to keep forever. In the end I now have two 1800’s – ’67S and ’73ES – I still drive them on gravel roads (ok the ’67 is in restoration but it will be driven on gravel new paint be damned).
I have a nice ’03 Outback 5sp and was planning on purchasing another one when I finished the ’67 project (no new car until project is done). Apparently Subaru is going to drop the manual from the Legacy in 2015. I still look at Volvo but without a manual or something like a true dual clutch paddle shifter system I just cannot drop that much money on something I won’t truly enjoy.
The problem is car companies cannot make money selling cars to customers who only buy new cars every 10 years – unfortunately that is the only type of car I want to buy. They may never make something for me to buy new, I can buy those good 5-6 year cars and keep them 5-8 years.
At this rate I would be more likely to drop my “new car fund” on a 3/4 ton diesel to keep for 10-15 years than a new car I want to own. Yet I have little desire to do that either.
On your last point, I never understood why car companies have the ability to make the utilitarian trucks and yet none of their utility or tough bits trickle into their cars, even the pricey ones.
You’re right on the year span thing, its why carmakers change their cars so slightly in what feels like every week. The illusion of improvement.
Keep those 1800’s going, those were some of the better cars for their time.
I like the Polestar bathroom tile they glued to the back. Make mine quartz please.
Usa is not Volvos biggest market anymore.
Januari sales;
China 5810 +21,6%
Usa 3792 -22,2
Sweden 3621 +19,6
Western Europe(excl Sweden) 11701 -4,5
Other countries 5448 +16,2