07 Xc90 Awd V8 Rear Seat Ent 7 Pass Wood Wheel One Owner Cd Local Car We Finance on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Volvo aligning model range into three families

Things have been slow in Gothenburg the past few years, but they're picking up speed. The only new model Volvo has released in the past four years since it was taken over by Geely - that being the V40 introduced in 2012 - started its development when the company was still under Ford's umbrella. But now the Swedish automaker is preparing to launch a volley of new models, and the new XC90 is only the starting point.
Volvo has set out to align its product portfolio into three model families - 40, 60 and 90 - each with three body-styles: sedan, wagon and crossover. (Volvo presented a tidy little table, which we've replicated below, to outline what it has in store.) That means a new S40 sedan and XC40 crossover as well as a replacement for the current V40 wagon, all to be based on a new platform shared with Geely. It also means replacements for the current S60, V60 and XC60 to be based on the modular SPA platform that underpins the new XC90, as well as a new S90 sedan to replace the S80 and a new V90 wagon to succeed the V70 and move it up-market above the V60.
All of these models are set to arrive within the next four years as Volvo moves to replace its entire lineup by 2019 and subsequently move to more competitive seven-to-eight-year product life-cycles. But as aggressively as Volvo is pursuing this renewal of its core models, they're not the only things Gothenburg has in store. Keep reading below to learn how Volvo's model line will flesh out over the coming years.

Junkyard Gem: 1982 Volvo 244 DL

Because it was sold in the United States for so many years — 19 model years, to be exact — and won the hearts of so many American drivers with its reliability and safety, sufficient examples of the Volvo 200 Series remain in service that they continue to show up in self-service car graveyards nearly 30 years after the last ones left the showroom. We saw a low-mile Richelieu Red 1983 Volvo 244 DL in a Denver-area yard last year, and now I've found a near-identical 1982 244 DL in another yard located between Denver and Cheyenne. Volvo went through several variations in the naming scheme for these cars between 1975 and 1993; during the first half of the 1980s, the 240 was badged using just the trim level. That makes this car a 1982 Volvo DL, the cheapest trim level available at the time. By now, though, everyone who knows old Volvos uses the three-number system of the 1970s, with the second digit indicating the number of engine cylinders and the third digit representing the number of doors. I'll be using the 244 designation here. This car came from the factory with a fuel-injected 2.1-liter SOHC straight-four rated at 112 horsepower. This car has the base four-on-the-floor manual transmission with an overdrive selected via the switch on the shift knob. If you wanted an automatic transmission, you had to pay an extra $325 (just over a thousand bucks in 2022 money). Later in the decade, a five-speed manual became available on the 240. Most 240s rack up better than 200,000 miles during their careers (and I've seen quite a few that made it past 300,000), but this car didn't reach that figure. This car still has its original AM/FM/cassette radio, which would have cost serious money in 1982. The MSRP on this car was $10,260, or about $31,800 in 2022 dollars. The two-door version went for $9,785 ($30,330 now). You could get a new 1982 Buick LeSabre Limited sedan for $9,331, and it was much roomier and more powerful than the VolvoÂ… but not as good in a crash. There's very little rust on this car, and the only serious body damage is this dented passenger-side door. The rodent nesting detritus under the hood and the lack of wear on the seat fabric suggests that it got parked for good a decade or three back. Perhaps it would have been rescued and revived in the rustier parts of the continent, but there's a glut of restorable 244s and a shortage of Volvo enthusiasts in the Denver area. This content is hosted by a third party.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.