Would anyone that's actually owned both a Toyota vehicle and a Volvo care to comment on the quality of each? Consumer Reports and other publications usually put Toyota at the top, and my personal experience is that is very much warranted. But many Volvo owners swear that their vehicles are every bit as good. Anyone out there with actual real experience with both vehicles?
Randy Farnsworth Not a Volvo owner yet Author of "A Stand Yet Taken"
From what I can gather from my friends who drive Toyota - it's pretty much true... They don't tend to cost as much to run as Volvo's (they are not in the same class either - they are mainly commuter cars, and larger family cars - of course minivans, and excellent trucks, big and small). They are reliable, they live on standard maintenance, and unexpected repairs are not all that common, it seems. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Toyota for say, a girlfriend or wife who didn't know all that much about cars, just needed something that would last, and that could be counted on... If you want an interesting car tho, look elsewhere, as they are pretty dry.
We have an older Volvo, a 1993 960. It's been basically all regular maintenance as well, now there are some age related repairs (rad, one leaky brake caliper, brake pads... the usual). I'd take a leap of faith and say it's been as reliable as I would excpect a Toyota of the same age to be (minus the rust ;-) ).
Who the heck knows. I have a 1997 850 GLT and it is as good as any car I have ever owned - completely trouble-free. The worst car we have ever owned was a Toyota Corolla; it stranded us more than once, and the head cracked at
40,000 miles. I have owned another example of each make over the years (Volvo 245 & Toyota PU), and there isn't a strong distinction in my mind as to quality. We have also owned 3 Mazdas and for my money they are as good as, or better, than Toyotas.
I'm not sure about the new stuff, but speaking of the 80's cars, Toyota tends to be very reliable and require very little maintenance to go at least
200k. Volvos feel much more solidly built, but if you don't abuse them (or get in accidents) they're not nessesarily any more reliable. An old Volvo will generally require a bit more maintenence but it will also be more crash worthy and has more amenities. I would say that both are quite similar in overall quality though, the Volvo will just have more parts to break.I once owned a 1987 Volvo 240 DL and currently have a 1990 Volvo 740 Turbo. My father presently has a 1991 Volvo 240 and my mother once had a 1988 Toyota Camry LE. Speaking only from personal experience, these three Volvos have been much more reliable than the Camry was. The 1988 Camry died of a blown engine and had multiple problems throughout it's life. The Volvos have had small, sometimes annoying problems, but nothing terminal like the Camry. The Camry felt tinny and insubstantial compared to the Volvos, all of which have a hewn-from-solid feel to them.
BTW, the Camry was replaced by an Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera, which had awful build quality (shaked and rattled and had lots of bits break and fall off) but was fairly reliable mechanically. Thankfully, this crudbucked was stolen and trashed. Insurance paid her far more than the heap was worth. She then purchased a 1997 Ford Taurus GL which also has awful build quality and more cheap looking plastic than Wal-Mart's toy department, but has thus far been mechanically unbroken.
I think I will stick to my Volvo.
Hi,
I have both. Totally different type of cars so personal tatse is a big factor.
As far as reliability goes Toyota's are the best. In Australia 50% of used car buyers go for a toyota.
But Volvos are bloody expensive out here so that will also be a factor - price wise and spare parts cost too. Can get a 96 Camry for the same price as a 90 Volvo.
Volvos (old ones) are more renowned for safety than reliability. New ones dropped a bit on safety and went more for some performance.
The toyota is much more fuel efficient and better power. Volvo more comfortable and feels more solid and probably last longer if well maintained and maintenance costs (lots).
rgds
Peter
Where do you get that idea? New ones use more air bags and the new s40 uses 4 different types of steel and the xc90 has roll-over protection and both use the highest strength steel, boron steel. The new s40 performs to the standard of the bigger, heavier s80. There's also a lot of electronic stability control features to keep cars from skidding and going out of control.
Volvo always used to market safety, now they are trying to market style and performance with safety.
Ben
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.