The Volvo is definately plusher inside. The front seats of the R are WAY better, but made me feel a little cramped, as well, although the Volvo guys will prove statistically that the R has more room up front than the G. Could be the R has better (bigger) side bolsters, I'm not sure. The G "feels" roomier to me, whatever the stats say.

The back seats do not compare. The R's are much smaller. Period.

The adjustable suspension on the R is not complicated at all. It is three simple buttons on the dash. Comfort, Sport, and Advanced. Comfort is just that. Like a Cadillac. Sport is a great compromise. Advanced is completely awesome in the twistees. The car feels like it's on rails, and will outperform pretty much every other car in it's class. But herein lies the problem. In comfort or sport, the car has an "artificial" feeling to it, and has some serious side-step issues over bumps. It's very hard to explain. But it is discomforting to me. Some have even pulled fuses to eliminate the electronic input of the computer to just let the suspension do it's job. There is no good way to explain this one, you really need to drive the car to experience it.

Reliability.....I didn't realize how bad Volvo was until I read the JD Powers 2004 study. Volvo ranked 34th. Dismal, to say the least. Most readers here know that Inifinity is amongst the top year after year. As much as the R owners don't want to admit it, I really believe the R will keep Volvo's rank down. There were MAJOR issues with the 04's, and my 05 had major issues as well, even as a car with under 2000 miles on it. We're not talking about squeaks and rattles, we're talking about faulty front axles that the dealers won't acknowedge...and more.

As far as performance, I won't go there now. I've already been in a pissing contest today on this board and don't really want to start a new one. I truly believe the R is a little quicker, and I know for a fact that it will out-handle the G. Still the same, I think the G is the better car, and that's why I owned the R last month and now I own a G

 

the volvo s60R pulls hard above 100....we looked at those last year. It doesnt through you back in the seat with TQ in the lower gears, but once up to speed and those turbos are spooled up, it just keeps pulling...I had an auto up in the 130's when test driving, still pulling pretty good for the auto...not like my GTO, but still better than my 05X would be doing.

 

Numbers are only good for one thing, paper :-P I'm glad someone else felt cramped in the front its just "too much." I like the lexus touch as sad is that to say, for plushness because it is very comfortable and leather is nice. Yeah I know the button thing did make it feel strange, but I didn't really push it, I agree let the suspn. do its job and not have a computer going all the time, it's like that top gear where jeremy decides he'd rather have a F-40 over a F-60 simply because it is all car and no computers. Computer is good for performance, but for suspention and leveling, its just too much, imo. Yea Volvo has always had issues, my 93 850 is doing much better since I took over it from a neglecting previous owner. But since Ford bought Volvo its gotten even worse, Ford of American cars has been pretty bad in quality control from my experience (Fix Or Repair Daily). Hey for me money is a big factor and the G is a steal in sense of what it offers so def. no regrets. As far as faster, hey R has bigger enginer, and more torque right? But honestly 20hp diff isn't worth the other problems the car has.

stl where did you get to test drive @ 130?? Can I come along? LOL
I'm going to some Lexus event here in GA where you get to test drive all the cars for 15mins, I wonder if I could drive one of them that fast :-D

 

The R has a smaller, turbo engine (2.5 liter 5 cylinder). Yes, it is a little more powerful than the G. The G owner will have a chance if the race is from a stop, because the R's have a real hard time launching. From a roll, I'd say the nod goes to the R, for sure.

The computer is activated all the time on the suspension (you can't disable it short of pulling a fuse in the engine bay). It combines levelers, gyroscopes, anti-dive, and a whole host of other things to control the car. Good for safety, yes. And that has always been Volvo's strong point. But again, I just didn't like the end result. The advanced mode handles like a lowered Honda S2000, though (very good). It's just too stiff to enjoy all the time.

 

This is kind OT but what is the general thought about reliability of a small turbo motor compared to a larger NA? My car common sense tells me that a smaller motor has to work harder and rev more so it's life span is going to be less. Having a turbo, puts more stress on the motor and adds more complexity which can lead to higher maintenance costs. However, turbo's have been around for a long time and greatly improved. They can make a lot of power but I always considered a larger NA engine superior.

 

Exactly the turbo also is dirtier, hence you gotta really work on it more frequently. The Volvo's similar to mine with the turbo are just a pita because you gotta run certain synthetic and etc, fuel economy can be equivalent to the NA engine. I agree there is no replacement for displacement :-)

 

doesnt matter too much, but I actually created the thread.. I am a newbie and dont actually own a G yet, but I will soon. When I do I hope to be able to contribute to the board.

 

just test driving on the highway...wasnt too crowded at the time

you say a turbo engine is more work b/c you have to use synthetic oil?? Most of us that care about our cars on here use synthetic anyway. Also, you need to use premium gas in Forced induction cars, but it is also recommended in the G's also. so really you dont do anything different, other than you are supposed to idle the engine for awhile before turning the car off to prolong the turbo life (so the turbo's have a chance to cool down for those that dont know. If you shut a car off with hot turbos, the oil that cools them stops circulating and will get baked in the turbo housing).

Factory turbo cars are built to take the turbocharging, so they are no less able to go many 100k miles. - - at the stock boost level that is!

 

no my point is it is not as forgiving as a NA engine, turbo's require the strict following of what they recommend, a NA wouldn't die on dino, a turbo you could have some issues. Right well any car you should idle a few minutes before parking, and if you want to extend the AC life and keep it dry you should also turn off the ac and let it blow high speed until the air feels dry. This can help to keep out moisture and in turn save your evap (remember I have been driving a 12yr old + car) all these little things really do help in the long run.

As far as approaching 100k miles in a turbo, I agree and disagree with you. You could make a 1970 Chevelle SS run to 100k miles, or a G35. The volvo turbos in particular are so prone to problems as I said I've been active in another forum with Volvo, and man do turbos have issues. I'm talking specifically about Volvo here of course, but european cars in another thread I stated just can be pricey and can frequent the shop. That was my point is that a turbo just has more moving parts which means more potential for nasty problems. Properly taken care of from day 1, I'd say you lessen those chances. Taking on a used Volvo 850 R may be a good project car :-)

 

erikill, I have been active on a volvo board recently as well, and while the S60R seems to have its share of problems, I have not heard one single complaint about the turbo. Perhaps you are speaking about models with different turbos. Volvo does not make it's turbos (KKK does, in the R's application).

The theory of an engine working harder to acheive the same output makes sense. By the same token, some of the most reliable commercial engines in the world use turbos. Diesel turbos, in particular, are known for going forever....

 

I am talking about another Volvo model, I kept referencing the 850 / S70 line in my posts, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clearer. That's what the majority of my volvo knowledge is along, however I noticed a decline in quality since Ford took over in manufacturing as the 850 -> s70.

Well diesel is a completely 'nother story. I've worked on diesel and not sure if you have, and its a whole different story since they use glow plugs and not spark plugs, and the whole fuel setup is different. In this sense the reliablity completely changes. Diesel is great but very nasty to deal with, also suprisingly excellent fuel economy and torque. Benz had it right with those older turbo diesel models, but today its probably an imagine thing.

 

Actually, a guy I work with has a current model turbo deisel Benz that is very nice. The older models used to churn black smoke. These days, it's hard to tell it's diesel except for that tell tale sound of the engine.

 

And another plus is the diesel is 30 cents cheaper than regular at most fuel stations, so you can save there. Come on Infiniti, turbo diesel :-P

My roommate has a C230 with the supercharger, and I really like the sound of it and the way it drives. Now heres another discussion, turbo vs supercharger :-D