almost 50 feet for a u turn???

Do I smell a troll?

My (recently retired) Ford Explorer's turning radius was not quite 38'. As the new S80 is slightly wider than my old Explorer and has a wider wheelbase a 40' turning radius seems reasonable.

For comparison, the turning radius of a 2009 Mercury Milan is a shade less than 39', the S-class Mercedes turning radius is 40' on the money, and my 2003 V70 comes in with a 39' turning radius. At least per the manufacturers' respective websites.

So really, what's the issue here? It would appear as if comparable vehicles have comparable turning radii. If you want a tighter turning radius you'll have to find something with a narrower wheelbase. Maybe a Subaru?

my 240's were aprox 15ft...my 1993 940t is around

don't know about japaneese subaru's.....

RWD car will almost always have a tighter turning radius than FWD, all other things being equal. The 2/7/9 series Volvos have exceptional turning radii, it's not the norm.

"~^ beancounter ~^" skrev i en meddelelse news: snipped-for-privacy@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

CUT

I know about the old S80, but here in Europe we are using the metric way.

With 15" wheels = 10,9 meter With 16" wheels = 11,6 meter With 17" wheels = 12,0 meter

So with 18" wheels it should be about the 40ft.

As it is front wheel driven, it has to use this space.

This is the worst about the S80, it is impossible to handle in a parking area og garrage.

My wifes S40(n) is dream compared with the S80.

Best regards Bjørn J . Denmark S80 T6 BSR

I guess we know now why so many women think |__| is six inches!

I find it hard to believe that a car the size of a 240 had a 15' turning radius, especially since Volvo reports it at 32'+

"Wooly" skrev i en meddelelse news:472bd483$0$11467$ snipped-for-privacy@roadrunner.com...

KLIP

It is certainly a must to be able to manage, when you try to dock the ship.

Best regards Bjørn J.

There seems to be confusion here concerning "Radius" and "Diameter". The minimum distance between the curbs for a "180" U-turn would be the

Now guys................. sort yourselves out. Andy I. (Glad mine is a 240!)

: > don't know about japaneese subaru's..... : : I guess we know now why so many women think |__| is six inches! : : I find it hard to believe that a car the size of a 240 had a 15' turning : radius, especially since Volvo reports it at 32'+ :

I own an '01 S80 with 17" wheels myself and will attest the maneuverability on the car is considerably worse than most cars I've driven. I know this is only one aspect of the overall vehicle but it is a source of dissatisfaction, most noticeable and most bothersome when parking in tight spaces. I have had other FWD sedans over the years including 2 Cadillacs that must have had similar or larger interior space that turned better. I would have hoped that Volvo would have attempted a redesign of the steering geometry sometime since mine was built but apparently they had other things to do.

As a comparison I also own a RWD Mercedes-Benz AMG CLK 430 coupe which I readily admit is a smaller and totally different type of car, but just for conversation it will hang a u-turn in slightly more than its own length. More directly comparable to the S80 in size are the RWD E-Class Mercedes' I've owned and they likewise held a considerable manueverability advantage --- not quite as good as the little AMG coupe but darned good anyway. That E-Class is the type of turning performance Volvo's S80 is compared against. Many drivers, maybe even most drivers, probably don't even know if their cars are FWD or RWD. All they know is that they turn or they don't. It does no good to try to explain to them that they should make allowances for their FWD cars because they're at a design disadvantage.

Not a troll. Simple truth.

Paddy's Pig

Hey, I can parallel park a 10-ton dumper and that turning radius is bigger than a city block! Use a tug to dock the ship :D

Well said - you beat me to it!

As others have said, it's down to front or rear wheel drive and tyre size - or, at any rate, tyre *width*.

Front wheel drive cars invariably have transverse engines which require a wider engine bay than rear wheel drive cars with fore and aft engines - leaving less space in the wheel-arches for the wheels to steer.

There's probably a limit on the maximum articulation of the constant velocity joints too - but the wheels are likely to foul the wheel-arches before that is reached.

My new V70 (S80 platform) has 17" very wide low profile tyres and has a

my 1979 tr spitfire turns on a dime and gives you $.08 change...it turns so sharp, the tyres chatter and scuff...trying to get grip on the road...

not like the s80.....the ride is a bit different as well...not near as nice....

"~^ beancounter ~^" skrev i en meddelelse news: snipped-for-privacy@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

CUT

It is also much more interesting, especially when the rear wheels meets together in the middle....due to the rear axel construction....!

Best regards Bjørn J. also with a 1984 Nissan Silvia (S12).

That's not quite true. Saab 900s up to '93 are front wheel drive with a longitudinal engine, as are early Toyota Tercels, I'm guessing there must be others.

In the sense of currently produced cars that statement is probably true though.

yea, the spitfire does get a bit squrily doing some high speed cornering...they are fun to drive behind and watch going through hard corners.....

That has nothing to do with it. It's because of the limited articulation of the CV joints used in FWD or AWD vehicles limiting the amount of steering movement, not the engine getting in the way.

Apart from which, there are plenty of FWD cars that use non-transverse engines. Old Renaults used a longitudinal vertical-block engine for years, as did Audi. Saab have used a slant-4 that's wider. I've got an Alfasud myself that's a flat-4 boxer engine, yet happens to have a good turning circle.

Triumphs Spitfires, Heralds & Vitesses had a famously tight turning circle, as their front wings were part of an overall tilt-forward bonnet. Combined with a very compact wishbone and shock absorber layout, this allowed plenty of room for the wheel to move.

I mentioned CV joint articulation as a possible factor in my previous post - but discounted it for cars with 'wide' tyres, where wheel clearance limits steering angle *before* you run out of CV joint movement.

If that is not true, how do you explain the fact that the turning circle of models such as the Volvo V70 depands on what tyres are fitted, even though the CV joints are the same?

Not even close - try 32 ft. for a 240 and/or 940.

I admit it feels like 15 ft. compared to a FWD or AWD Volvo.

yea, it must seem a lot smaller...i know i can do a u trun w/out hitting the curbs in a normal residential street.....the 240 seemed a bit tighter than the 940...

I always get looks when I pull u turns in my 245. Wind it all the way left, roll forward a bit and the tires clunk over to ~89.9° (ok, the frontend is a little loose *g*) and it will turn inside most anything... Great for getting into the micro mini parking stalls retailers are putting out front these days.