Outback/Forester or Volvo XC70 - which one is better

No recent experience with Subaru, but Volvo has had more dissatisfied customers recently. The Golden Age ended in '93 when they went to FWD cars. Volvo seems to have trouble - a lot of trouble - with each new technology. They figure it out after a few years, but that means nearly every car has a built-in deficiency. Volvo's early AWD was as fragile as a 4-40 tap. One owner in the alt.autos.volvo forum had neglected to include his spare in the tire rotation, and when he used the spare he didn't make it ten miles before his AWD was destroyed. The present system is capable and more robust.

You're right about the turbos in Volvos though - my '85 has the original turbo at 237K miles in spite of my inability to convince my wife to consider the turbo when starting and stopping the engine. I think just about any water cooled turbo will be fine.

The XC70 has been out long enough I wouldn't be afraid of it.

Mike

Yours doesn't seem like a fair comparison. The Forester starts around ~$19K, Outback starts ~$21K and XC70 starts ~$34K. Sure, if you load up an Outback you could approach the cost of an XC70, but then you're really stretching the question.

Price independent, as you point out, a Subaru is statistically more reliable. The XC70 is a heavier, perhaps safer, and more luxurious car. You make the decision, unless you're buying it for me, in which case I'll take the Volvo b/c I already have an Outback.

I have two Volvo's, and an outback, the first volvo is a 94 850 turbo wagon with 90K. my outback is a 98 with 84K, since they have about the same miles, I feel a comparison is fair, the Volvo has WAY more squeaks and rattles, and feels MUCH older than the Subaru, however, I haven't had an major trouble with either. the second Volvo, a 92 240 Wagon, has

180K. I just passed it down to my son, that is the best and most reliable car of the bunch.

Jerry