Sign in to follow this  
MotorTrend

News Volvo R-design Adds Style, Not Performance To 2008, 2009 Models

R-Design  

77 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I agree with most of you and think they should have made an epic difference in performance, not unlike the 222hp T-5 850 versus the remapped 240hp ultraperformance T-5R. That would do it, yeah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of you and think they should have made an epic difference in performance, not unlike the 222hp T-5 850 versus the remapped 240hp ultraperformance T-5R. That would do it, yeah!

Thats what microsoft does. It starts with removing granular file control, progresses to slower version that cost more, and finally just gives up all effort of pretending to care and hikes the price 20% and justifies it as operating costs.

Its a slippery slope when you start thinking that no gain is the same as a 10% gain.... or loss......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats what microsoft does. It starts with removing granular file control, progresses to slower version that cost more, and finally just gives up all effort of pretending to care and hikes the price 20% and justifies it as operating costs.

Its a slippery slope when you start thinking that no gain is the same as a 10% gain.... or loss......

Ouch :P

Lexus had a similar line (L tuned) with mostly suspension and comestic upgrade.

Having a R-line without any actual performance upgrade is like putting in TypeR seat and slap R badge on an Integra LS. :lol:

Their marketing team is retard since they can't figure out why Volvo can't compete against AMG, M or S line from other euro brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to see 400hp and 400 lb of torque. Better suspension and big brakes. 6sp manual w/ a 10lb clutch. And staged models (I, II, III) from the factory. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to see 400hp and 400 lb of torque. Better suspension and big brakes. 6sp manual w/ a 10lb clutch. And staged models (I, II, III) from the factory. :angry:

Clutch burn outs are sweet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very Very Lame. The current Version 2.0 with any decent amount of options and your over 30k for a vehicle that is basically all looks. This is in the price range of a 08 STI or save more cash and go MazdaSpeed 3 of which both run circles around the C30. Give me a break!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to see 400hp and 400 lb of torque. Better suspension and big brakes. 6sp manual w/ a 10lb clutch. And staged models (I, II, III) from the factory. :angry:

You should be the CEO of Ford. I would start saving my pennies for that right now. If these dumb bastards had a brain they would look to you guys for info. Even I can see it is an attempt to bring yuppy scum into the tuner world, such as it is. Lots of cars with fins and spoilers and flashy rims and no substance. I may never buy a new car. 30K for a piece of plastic. Used bombers FTW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just add some cheap a** cosmetic upgrades ot Volvo's, while steal the volvo engine & chassis, slap a Ford XR5 badge on it ,lol, Ford are so f'd the told me it's runiing a Garrett turbo when I am quite sure that it's a 16T angled, his answer after speaking to his main tech was, "it's a Volvo turbo", to which I said "Mitsubishi". Anyway, I'll post a thread later with all the probs with his new XR5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats what microsoft does. It starts with removing granular file control, progresses to slower version that cost more, and finally just gives up all effort of pretending to care and hikes the price 20% and justifies it as operating costs.

Its a slippery slope when you start thinking that no gain is the same as a 10% gain.... or loss......

The Volvo R as conceptualized and intially offered was just a cosmetic package with a piss poor effort at adding performance to the T-5 engined car. It got a little more differentiated in the S/V70R model range and later, but don't kid yourselves, these aren't like the AMG or M-tuned cars. You are paying for cosmetic changes / limited production and you know it. Reminds me of the 2.0 normally aspirated Golf 3 GTI or the later 1.8T GTI with less performance than the base model with 1.8T powerplant option. Mustang 5.0 GT versus Mustang 5.0 LX. I could keep going...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so with everybody in this thread on the same page i want to hear from one of the six people that think this is a good idea or a step in the right direction (from the poll)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Volvo R as conceptualized and intially offered was just a cosmetic package with a piss poor effort at adding performance to the T-5 engined car. It got a little more differentiated in the S/V70R model range and later, but don't kid yourselves, these aren't like the AMG or M-tuned cars. You are paying for cosmetic changes / limited production and you know it. Reminds me of the 2.0 normally aspirated Golf 3 GTI or the later 1.8T GTI with less performance than the base model with 1.8T powerplant option. Mustang 5.0 GT versus Mustang 5.0 LX. I could keep going...

So you really saying no effort is the same as no effort? I rather have them make the token gesture than no do anything at all other than raise the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so with everybody in this thread on the same page i want to hear from one of the six people that think this is a good idea or a step in the right direction (from the poll)

I voted good idea purely from the Volvo business standpoint. History has proven that a prettied-up T-5 with essentially no performance enhancements and just cosmetic enhancement can generate excitement and even communities of enthuisasts (and limited access "R Forums"). I probably would have thrown in a gratuitous 10% horsepower tune on the ECU and maybe a shiny blow off valve like a binky for the Chuck's and Mitch's of the world, but otherwise, I can see them selling this car and meeting the expectations of most buyers that just want something that "looks impressive" and doesn't consume more fuel than its base counterparts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted good idea purely from the Volvo business standpoint. History has proven that a prettied-up T-5 with essentially no performance enhancements and just cosmetic enhancement can generate excitement and even communities of enthuisasts (and limited access "R Forums"). I probably would have thrown in a gratuitous 10% horsepower tune on the ECU and maybe a shiny blow off valve like a binky for the Chuck's and Mitch's of the world, but otherwise, I can see them selling this car and meeting the expectations of most buyers that just want something that "looks impressive" and doesn't consume more fuel than its base counterparts.

I'm with you on this. There is a reason they took at way the real R cars - they just weren't getting the numbers from that line that they needed. Audi has done the same thing with their S-line other than they lower the car a bit with it. Volvo is making a decision based on the mass market - not a small group of enthusiasts that will mod the car anyway. Don't forget that not so long ago and especially in Europe that Volvos were cars for old people! Then the 850 turbo came out and that all changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm quite sure without looking that cars are sold on looks first and performance second. besides when people think performance today they're thinking of fuel economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this