Skip to content
Volvo models, news & reviews
3
Handling
Performance
Usability
4
Feelgood factor
Readers' rating
By Ben Barry
First Drives
27 August 2009 11:07
On looks alone, this Volvo XC70 may seem like old news, yet it puts a whole new twist on the urban off-roader theme. Why? Because, despite the jacked-up stance, it’s actually front-wheel drive.
Don’t panic, it’s still on sale. The front-wheel drive XC70 has been introduced along with a front-drive XC60, both cars being cheaper and less polluting than the 4x4 variants that sired them.
So, the cheapest XC70 now weighs in at £27,995 (front-drive 2.4D Drive SE), where the cheapest four-wheel drive version starts at £31,535. The front-drive cars come only with the 173bhp version of Volvo’s 2.4-litre five-cylinder turbodiesel, where the nearest equivalent all-paws get 202bhp, so comparing the mpg and C02 benefits is difficult. However, we can see that, like-for-like, the front-driver is 79kg lighter.
Only partly true. With the manual gearbox we tried, the 0-62mph dash is down by 1.2sec to 9.6sec compared with the four-by-four, plus mpg rises by a worthwhile 7mpg to 47.1mpg and C02 drops from 186g/km to a highly respectable 159g/km.
The auto figures are less appealing: there’s only 2mpg and 11g/km between the two, despite the four-driver’s extra weight and power. In fact, Volvo’s own figures reveal the XC70 torque converter auto to be spectacularly inefficient in front-wheel drive configuration – it covers 7.3 fewer miles than the manual car for every gallon of diesel. Yet when you compare the same figures for automatic and manual four-wheel drive XC70s, the gap suddenly shrinks to 2.7mpg between the two.
Not well, sadly. The ride quality is still excellent (far better than the XC60), and it’s still refined in here, but that only makes the rampant torque steer seem more out of place. Strangely, neither the similarly powerful front-drive XC60 nor the S80 were similarly afflicted, but the XC70 torque steers in first, second, third and sometimes even fourth gear. Even if you’re a pootler, you will notice the wheel tugging, especially the unholy mess that unravels when you need to getaway from a junction fairly quickly. First there’s wheelspin, then the traction control cuts power, then power comes back in again and, finally, you torque steer down the road. And we drove it in the dry!
Clearly, this isn’t a positive review, but it’s important to remember this is a variant-specific – not model – failing. The four-wheel drive XC70 is a smooth-riding, luxurious-feeling, highly practical estate car that holds much appeal. Removing the front driveshafts has spoiled it and, somehow, ruined the mpg and emissions when combined with the automatic gearbox too – surely the most fitting transmission.
No, the only way to go with an XC70 is four-wheel drive combined with, ideally, an auto ’box. It’s worth spending the extra for what is a far superior car.
Add your comment
Sign in You must be signed in to submit a comment.
Volvo XC70 DRIVe (2009) CAR review
Subject
Your comment
By submitting your comment, you agree to adhere to the CAR Magazine website Terms and Conditions
Cancel
You must be logged in to subscribe to a topic
Login or register now
pint6x says
RE: Volvo XC70 DRIVe (2009) CAR review
This car would actually make a lot of sense for me. I have a FWD V70 2.4 D5. Due to the remote nature of where I live, I do find myself negotiating fairly bumpy tracks with ruts, pot holes and big stones strewn about the place. In several places the car can ground out if I'm not very careful. While I have no need for a 4x4, a FWD car with better ground clearance would be just what I need. I prefer manual gearboxes, so wouldn't take the hit of the inefficient slushbox offered with this car.
28 August 2009 12:16
markh says
Hi Rob, I agree (and by the way so do I live in a country with high snowfall etc--I'm a Brit living in Moscow). But back in good old blighty you will be one of the 5% using it as intended. My real home is Surrey and when I go back every 3 months and take my daughter to school the narrow roads are crowded with huge 4 by 4's that are not needed. I'm not against people having them , I just wanted to stand up for the car option of 2 wheel drive. I happen to like the Kauga (the only ford do) and I'd quite happily (for the UK and heck prob in Russia) buy the 2 wheel option. Does this make me a poser ??? Probably--but I'd happily take this label with the 2k saving and much less fuel costs
Hi Rob, I agree (and by the way so do I live in a country with high snowfall etc--I'm a Brit living in Moscow). But back in good old blighty you will be one of the 5% using it as intended.
My real home is Surrey and when I go back every 3 months and take my daughter to school the narrow roads are crowded with huge 4 by 4's that are not needed. I'm not against people having them , I just wanted to stand up for the car option of 2 wheel drive.
I happen to like the Kauga (the only ford do) and I'd quite happily (for the UK and heck prob in Russia) buy the 2 wheel option. Does this make me a poser ??? Probably--but I'd happily take this label with the 2k saving and much less fuel costs
28 August 2009 10:49
KiwiRob says
Hi Mark, Wheither an AWD is pointless or not is highly dependant on where you live, I happen to live in a country with high snowfall and lots of ice in the winter, an AWD car with winter tyres is what is needed.
Hi Mark,
Wheither an AWD is pointless or not is highly dependant on where you live, I happen to live in a country with high snowfall and lots of ice in the winter, an AWD car with winter tyres is what is needed.
28 August 2009 07:31
OK--I'm gonna go against the grain here--- It's not a ......ty pointless car. No, hear me out. Most (read 95% +) of four wheel drive cars and even those that psuedo 4 wheel drive (think RAV4 or Kouga that are pretty useless off road) are pretty useless off road. So why are they being bought?????? Cos they look cool and fashionably hip........... Soooo doesnt it make sense to have the same looks, at less cost , and less polluting????? Who's the idiot...... the guys driving round in 4 by 4's never using them (as designed) or the guy paying less and polluting less ?????? Just for the record ........I in niether camp........ I'll take the 320d effecient dynamics and ENJOY the driving :-)
OK--I'm gonna go against the grain here---
It's not a ......ty pointless car. No, hear me out.
Most (read 95% +) of four wheel drive cars and even those that psuedo 4 wheel drive (think RAV4 or Kouga that are pretty useless off road) are pretty useless off road.
So why are they being bought??????
Cos they look cool and fashionably hip...........
Soooo doesnt it make sense to have the same looks, at less cost , and less polluting?????
Who's the idiot...... the guys driving round in 4 by 4's never using them (as designed) or the guy paying less and polluting less ??????
Just for the record ........I in niether camp........ I'll take the 320d effecient dynamics and ENJOY the driving :-)
28 August 2009 05:59
gusto says
Reading this for cock-ups is more interesting than the car. "159 MPG" wow. No wheel drive . . . .
27 August 2009 23:00
Upload stories, photos or videos direct to the site, or email newsdesk@carmagazine.co.uk.
Alternatively, call 01733 468 485 (+ 44 1733 468 485)
Seen a secret new car, fabulous exotic or have news we should publish? Then get in touch now.