# vw eos vs volvo c70 head to head...



## archiea (Nov 29, 2006)

SCHWEET blog!!
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/eos/


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: vw eos vs volvo c70 head to head... (archiea)*

This was posted several months back, I guess they can talk about feel all the want, but the slowest Eos 2.0T reviewed acceleration times (by various magazine tests) is equal to or faster than the quickest Volvo C70 test times. The Eos is a quicker car than the C70. 
As to their comments on the 3.2, a *fully loaded* 3.2 Eos wades into *base* C70 territory, you'd have to spend another $9-10K in the Volvo to equal all of the features in the Eos and you still do not have an answer for the 3.2 VR6. A mildy optioned 2.0T is match for the base C70 at thousands less.


----------



## chewym (Jun 21, 2006)

VW Eos (3.2 from the torque spec) vs. the Volvo C70. Video from Motor Trend, comparison in the May issue.
http://www.motortrend.com/av/r...o_c70/


----------



## mark_d_drake (Aug 17, 2006)

*Re: (chewym)*

OK, so how many times does she need to state that the only advantage of the Volvo is that it's err "more luxourious". Be interesting to see the H2H in the May issue. Any idea when it will be published ?


----------



## Funmobile (Feb 19, 2007)

No clue on publication date, but I wonder if the ads on the page give a hint on the winner? 
(In case they change: it was plastered with volvo ads)


----------



## mark_d_drake (Aug 17, 2006)

*Re: (Funmobile)*

Well what do you expect... EOS Ads...


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: (chewym)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chewym* »_VW Eos (3.2 from the torque spec) vs. the Volvo C70. Video from Motor Trend, comparison in the May issue.


I have to wait at least a month to find out the winner?








nice vid. a couple of notes though. torque values maybe the same, but in the 3.2 VR6 max torque is available at 2500 rpm (and as in all VR6s 80% of that max is available from 1500 rpm), in the Volvo its available at 4800 rpm(as per their website). The Volvo also weighs more(about 120 lbs more than the 3.2, almost 300lbs more than the 2.0T).
If they wanted to compare the luxury of the vehicles as the reviewer commented on so many times, choose an Eos 3.2 with the luxury package...I clearly saw the DSG paddles which you only get on the sports package.
I'd rather have the sportier car, as I can always drive it more mundane if I so choose.


----------



## chewym (Jun 21, 2006)

*Re: (mark_d_drake)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mark_d_drake* »_Well what do you expect... EOS Ads...









They exist?








Will VW ever figure it out about Eos and marketing it?


_Modified by chewym at 11:38 PM 3-3-2007_


----------



## big_sos (Mar 4, 2007)

I'm looking at all the hard top convertible. Price out the volvo with equal options, and you'll see about an 11K difference. That's a lot. Plus, there's no availability in my neck of the woods. Even the web page says "limited availability".


----------



## Instynct (Sep 7, 2006)

*Re: (big_sos)*

The reviewers both pretty much fessed up that the EOS was the better handling car, had a plush interior, etc.
Yet in the end their reason for selecting the Volvo was "panache" Strange they also though the Volvo was the "safer" feeling car. 
bottom line I didn't feel it was a very professional review and their final choice was made by the badge name, not the overall stats. But that is their prerogative, and certainly those who buy the C70 will be doing so for name recognition and the "outdoing the Jones'" with a higher sticker price.


----------



## cb391 (Mar 12, 2006)

*Re:*

Motor Trend used to give good tests on matched cars. You can't really test a car that is set up for comfort against one set up for sporty drving and make a full valid comparison. Kind of tthe same when they do their vehicles of the year. Not really matched up well at all. The Cars.com review has more validity for me except the trim levels which may not have been the same. I have never driven a C70 but now that I own my Eos I don't think I would want to drive one..


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: Re: (cb391)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cb391* »_Motor Trend used to give good tests on matched cars. You can't really test a car that is set up for comfort against one set up for sporty drving and make a full valid comparison. Kind of tthe same when they do their vehicles of the year. Not really matched up well at all. 

I think it pretty much goes like this with the magazines:
They want to do a story about hardtop conv. four seaters. Each manufacturer has certain media fleet cars set aside to the task. The magazine knows that the C70s base price is around $39K and to make the comparison more equal from that perspective, they ask for the VW Eos that is closer in price to the C70. 
So the car they get from VW is a fully loaded Eos 3.2 with sports package. For this particular comparo I'm wondering if they truly recieved a base C70 or if the one they got has a few options that improved its luxury standing (which isn't reflected in an as tested priced yet) 
The magazines don't buy the vehicles, they often don't get to specify what cars they get, they review what is available in the media fleet.


----------



## cb391 (Mar 12, 2006)

*Re: Re: (gizmopop)*

I agree with all you are saying. Because the cars tested were different, it would have been better if they had just made their side by side comaparisons and let it go at that. 
Andy


----------



## chocoholic_too (Jan 2, 2007)

*Re: (chewym)*

here's another tete a tete from Road and Track magazine.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/ar...=4814


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: (chocoholic_too)*

Its good to see the comparos coming out, I guess the Road and Tracks comparo shows the other side.
A luxury package Eos 2.0T is nearly as sporty as the C70, considering the Eos has all weather tires vs the Pirelli Pzero Rossos the C70 comes with...plus the Eos has a sports package on offer ...


----------



## chris2.0tdsg (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: (gizmopop)*

Well, i have driven both, and i can tell you the EOS 2.0T DSG is more sporty then the C70 T5 Automatic!


----------



## Grinder (Feb 6, 2004)

*Re: (chocoholic_too)*

It bothers me that Volvo gets points with R&T and others for safety when the only additional thing that I can see is the headrests that come forward to reduce whiplash. -Got to keep the advertisers happy!


----------



## jgermuga (Jan 11, 2007)

I believe the EOS has these as well. they just don't have a catchy "whiplash protection" name. 
There was a very recent post about this.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3112109


----------



## jgermuga (Jan 11, 2007)

And take a look at the trunk...
http://www.roadandtrack.com/as...5.jpg
It appears once the top is down, it is pretty much not usable.
I still think the Volvo is a much stronger competitor than the Pontiac G6 though and I would certainly consider it if not for the higher price and slightly weaker performance. As for the reviewer saying the ride is quieter with the top down... OK, but if the top down ride is too refined, why even bother with a convertable? Personally, I want some sensory feedback that the top is in fact down.


----------



## mark_d_drake (Aug 17, 2006)

*Re: (jgermuga)*









Note the yellow button. When you press it the stacked roof raises slightly allowing access to the space underneath..


_Modified by mark_d_drake at 8:45 AM 3-6-2007_


----------



## ashbinder (Nov 27, 2006)

*Re: (mark_d_drake)*

Funny - this review that I came across doesn't even mention the C70 as a direct competitor, but instead lists everything else...
http://cars.about.com/od/volks...s.htm


----------



## oab97 (Feb 18, 2007)

*Re: (ashbinder)*

IMO these cars are almost a dead heat:
- I prefer the C70 styling inside and out. (purely subjective)
- The C70 has more comfortable, but less sporting seats.
- I prefer the Eos drive train, and straight-line performance (even with just the 2.0T). The 3.2 is a complete no-brainer.
- I prefer the C70's handling when stock from the factory, although I am quite sure that if you replaced the Eos all-seasons with the Pirelli PZeros that come on the C70 the VW would run rings around the Volvo.
- They both have usable trunks with a movable device delineating top-up only from top-down space. The Eos has a larger top-down opening, but the Volvo has the convenient roof raising button. The trucks are a wash IMO.
- The C70 disappoints by not coming with a spare tire, just a repair kit. I prefer the Eos spare even if it is one of those miniature ones.
- Both offer audiophile-worthy Dynaudio stereos. The Volvo’s is better but it’s also 50% more expensive.
- The VW’s DSG is a slam-dunk vs. the C70’s 5-spd auto. But with that said, the C70’s auto is better than most slushboxes I’ve ever driven and the tiptronic mode shifts quicker and firmer than I would have expected.
At the end of the day which car is better is really all about personal preference and is pretty much a toss-up EXCEPT……
for the ~$10K difference in cost for two comparable equipped cars. The VW is unquestionably the better overall buy. Add in the fact that Volvo dealers are all asking $2-3K over sticker and the whole comparison almost become moot as a well-equipped Volvo ends up closer to a Merc CLK320 than the Eos in price.


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: (jgermuga)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jgermuga* »_ As for the reviewer saying the ride is quieter with the top down... OK, but if the top down ride is too refined, why even bother with a convertable? Personally, I want some sensory feedback that the top is in fact down.









I think that's a wash too, how trained does your ear have to be to distinguished between 71 decibels and 75? I'm not saying that some cannot discern this difference..but honestly they measured these with instruments. 
If the Eos is a 3.2 all your going to be hearing is the VR6 growl...(you might not even turn on the radio...







)


----------



## jgermuga (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: (oab97)*

_Modified by jgermuga at 10:52 AM 3-7-2007_


----------



## jgermuga (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: (oab97)*

Don,
Nice summary however, 
"- They both have usable trunks with a movable device delineating top-up only from top-down space. The Eos has a larger top-down opening, but the Volvo has the convenient roof raising button. The trucks are a wash IMO."
...agreed they are both usable in the end but for the C70, not only do have a moving part for putting the top down, but yet another for getting into the trunk while the top is down. I find this a bit awkward. More imprtantly it's also one more thing to go wrong with the roof mechanism.
And if the Volvo is going for over sitcker, it would put the cost differential closer to 15K for me, since I was able to get a very good deal on my EOS. This equates to an almost 50% increase in price. 
I didn't actually drive the C70 since on paper they look dead even and I figured why even waste my time with the C70. I also have to admit, to me Volvo still has an image of a more conservative, safety first brand. But even if this were more important to me, I can't image there is a 50% difference in quality, ride and safety.


----------



## flubber (Sep 12, 2005)

*Re: (jgermuga)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jgermuga* »_...agreed they are both usable in the end but for the C70, not only do have a moving part for putting the top down, but yet another for getting into the trunk while the top is down. I find this a bit awkward.

I think the Top Gear review said this well:

_Quote »_So to get anything in or out you have to work your weary way through an infurating ritual of opening the bootlid, pressing a special button to half-raise the assembly, waiting for that to whirr its way up, then wrestling with a protective baggage/gubbins separator and... oh, forget it.
So you'll leave your stuff in the back seats.

While you can't get a big piece of luggage in or out of the Eos with the top down, the opening is big enough to deal with groceries, a briefcase, a gym bag, etc., which is 95% of what I need the trunk for, anyway.


----------



## jgermuga (Jan 11, 2007)

Not to mention that having the top down will increase the need to use the trunk. I wouln't hesitate to leave the trunk down while heading into a restuarant for an hour or so, but I am sure not going to want to leave my briefcase with my laptop in it sitting in plain sight in the back seat!


----------



## flheat (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: (jgermuga)*

I had a deposit down on a C70 until I test drove one.
First the gap in pricing was much more severe with a trade. I would have received at best 5,000 less on my trade than VW gave me (they told me if they had the c70 in stock and we were doing the trade now they would give me $21,000 for my audi, but that would probably go down because of the 6 month wait for the car --VW gave me $26,000 nine months later).
I did not find the interior at all to my liking. I don't know how they can say it is luxurious when it essentially is the same interior as a $20,000 S40. The center console looks like a sheet of stainless steel with a television remote control taped to it. I sat low in the car and I never could get my left arm comfortable. The armrest was too low and the window sill was too high to put my arm on it.
The test drive was the final decision. The car felt lathargic and did not respond as fast as my Audi had with a 1.8T 178HP vs. this 218HP. The handling was soft and had no road feel until the tires kept pulling the car into the ruts in the road. All this while there was an "barking dog" noise coming from the front of the car (later finding this is a common problem with the ventilation unit).
Lastly, the trunk button is a joke, there is no way when I have my arms full of groceries, I am going to wait 20 seconds holding a button to raise the roof panels and wait that 20 seconds again to lower it--I would just throw everything in the backseat instead.
Any compo of the two that does not pick the Eos is solely doing it based on their visual design preference of the C70 or they are unethical and knows that the Eos has no advertising budget.


----------



## jgermuga (Jan 11, 2007)

BTW, The Volvo site (USA anyway) has a flash of how the trunk/roof works. Even after the roof is raised, it appears there is some fiddling that has to be done with the protective cover (unless it moves with the roof)
All in all, after contemplating the impact of my last post per leaving anything in an open backseat, I could see this "inconvenience" quickly turning into an annoyance.


----------



## flubber (Sep 12, 2005)

*Re: (jgermuga)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jgermuga* »_All in all, after contemplating the impact of my last post per leaving anything in an open backseat, I could see this "inconvenience" quickly turning into an annoyance.

Yup, it's like the discussions about the fiddly manual top on the Solstice and the Sky. Many folks will say it's no big deal, and that may be true if the car is just a toy you take out once a weekend. But when you're living with a car every day, little things like this can add up to thinking more about the annoyances than the fun. And that's deadly for a convertible, since it's supposed to be all about the fun.


----------



## WolfsburgerMitFries (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: (flubber)*

Funny this thread is so popular right now. I saw a C70 while I was out today, and I was unimpressesd...again. I suppose its because I know that its vastly inferior to the Eos.
For something that costs about $11,000 more than an Eos, they could have done a better job with the antennas. The shark fin is ugly, and I didn't realise it also comes with one of those cheap plastic rubber ducky antennas. How tacky.








Its a little hard to tell, but the seals are dry and have white spots. This guy needs Krytox, he just doesn't know it yet.








Rear seat leg room certianly did not impress me. Its like the backseat in the Eos, kids and hot chicks fit, adults only in a pinch.








Took a picture of the windshield marking to see if it obviously said anything about IR blocking. Nothing seemed obvious.








They had just been to the Volvo dealer and special ordered something for $81. Couldn't tell what it was.








The car had a silver pinstripe that you can also see in the first picture. Red looks really nice when its new and clean, It just oxidizes too fast. 











_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 4:52 PM 3-7-2007_


----------



## ehdg eos (Sep 9, 2006)

*Re: (WolfsburgerMitFries)*

Damn are you a PI or something?







Just a bit too much information you gathered from this person's car. I've heard of stalking but your taking it to a new level it looks like.


----------



## WolfsburgerMitFries (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: (ehdg eos)*

If you look at the receipt, the sales guy at the Volvo dealer is "Stewart". I know the guy wery well, and its dated today. I could pick up the phone and find out exactly what was special ordered, no problem. That would be taking it to the next level, but I'm not going to. I just observed what was right in front of me.

Some day I'll have to tell the story about how I caught the woman who hit and ran my E30 BMW and then vanished in the middle of the night. 
Poor Benny. What a superb little car, 2800 pounds and an inline 6. This car went to the junkyard with a perfect vinyl interior, look at a E30 with leather today, it will be absolutely trashed. Not a bad quality picture from back in the FD Mavica days.











_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 12:44 AM 3-8-2007_


----------



## darien (Oct 28, 2006)

*Re: (ehdg eos)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WolfsburgerMitFries* »_They had just been to the Volvo dealer and special ordered something for $81. Couldn't tell what it was. 

Hehe, maybe it's the "Special" lubricant ==> Krytox?


----------



## jgermuga (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: (WolfsburgerMitFries)*

Ehh, It's just popular due to my rant...








Jeremiah,
Remind me not to piss you off. 
Me thinks now that signing up for the FRAPPR thing was a bad idea.


----------



## WolfsburgerMitFries (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: (jgermuga)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jgermuga* »_
Jeremiah,
Remind me not to piss you off. 
Me thinks now that signing up for the FRAPPR thing was a bad idea.









I appreciate that, but my name on my profile is false. Its not that I'm paranoid, but we are in a open access public forum, and my name is unique (last name occurs less then 70 times in the USA according to Switchboard.com, and when combined with my first name...I'm the only one in the world) so its just too easy to do a Google search and find me...I have no other choice, I have to do business behind an alias. If my last name was Riley, or Jones or Smith it would be a different story.



_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 9:40 PM 3-7-2007_


----------



## flheat (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: (jgermuga)*

I like to cause trouble from time to time and the C70 forums always come across as elitists. I like to poke fun because the design is the only justification they have for a $10,000 price tag over the Eos. They talk about Scandanavian design and I was showing them where Volvo stole its design -- boy did I catch hell.
Of course none of them saw any similarities to the 1998 Buick, but I beg to differ.


----------



## ChicagoVW (Sep 10, 2006)

*Re: (WolfsburgerMitFries)*

WolfsburgerMitFries....international man of mystery


----------



## flheat (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: (chewym)*

Has anyone seen the May issue? A friend of mine read it and said the Volvo won despite the Eos winning in most categories. He said one of the last comments was despite Motor Trend picking the C70, most walked past it to get to the Eos. Perhaps VW should advertise more in MT? If anyone has the issue, I'd be interested to hear more.


----------



## Roku (Jan 22, 2007)

*Re: (flheat)*

Yeah, I glanced over it at the newstand today trying to see if it was worth buying to add to my collection of EOS reviews. Basically, it was a rehash of many of the other reviews I read. In the end the Volvo seems to win out simply because the wind turbulence in the cabin was less and the handling was more akin to what one might expect from a luxury auto - which the reviewer thought the Volvo was. That said, there was no mention whether the windscreen was used or not and what type of driving the reviewer did. I also watched the videos online and the woman doing the review didn't impress me much when she talked about either car. I put the mag back on the stand. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 
FWIW
Craig


----------



## oab97 (Feb 18, 2007)

*Re: (Roku)*

I picked up the issue because I was also interested in several other articles including the all-new WRX (ick!, big disappointment







).
Anyway, they compared an Eos 3.2 (Sport Obviously) with 18"s to the C70. Since it was a loaded 3.2 the price differential was only like $5K. The C70 won the comparo for the following reasons:
1) The chick who wrote the article clearly had zero interest in performance and was all about a smooth quite ride. Personally I think a '76 Caddy convertible that wallowed all over the road but managed to soak up expansion joints would be more her speed than either if these two cars. I was not impressed with her writing or her decision logic.
2) You guessed it: The Volvo was smoother and more luxurious to drive.
3) The Eos road harshly compared to the Volvo. She did mention that maybe the cheaper, more softly suspended non-sport models with 16" or 17" wheels might improve things.








4) The Volvo was quieter with the top down at highway speeds
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Had a sports/perofmance oriented journalist written the article I am quite sure the outcome would have been very different.


_Modified by oab97 at 1:25 AM 4-8-2007_


----------



## Former Texan (Dec 15, 2006)

*Re: (oab97)*

I read the Motor Trend "head to head" read review and also found it to be pathetic...the "final conclusion" didn't match up with the points made in the article, which mostly favored the Eos. I compared both cars before making my Eos purchase - the C70 is less car for more money.
The Motor Trend review seemed to go out of its way to make Eos virtues into vices. For instance, it noted that the Eos roof closing was a more "fussy" affair than the Volvo's because its roof design had to account for a sunroof...without ever mentioning how freaking awesome and unique it is to have a sunroof in a hardtop convertible. 
Also, while the price difference between the two cars was "mentioned", it was treated as an afterthought. The price differential between the two cars can be almost $11,000 - which is enough to buy an Eos AND a nice used car (or cheap new one). This is not a minor deal. A reviewer for a magazine who isn't plunking down real money for either the EOS or C70 really won't care about the price difference, but an actual consumer will. 
It seems that Motor Trend "began with the end in mind" and that end was a nod to the C70. It makes me wonder whether MT's copy is overtly influenced by advertising concerns, or if its writers just make a subconscious assumption that if something costs more, it must be better.


----------



## cb391 (Mar 12, 2006)

*Re:*

Maybe if enough Eos owners and others wrote letters to MT's editor expressing their dislike of the way the comparison was done and also express the fact that maybe it could affect the magazine's sales and credibility, maybe they might find a way to be more objective?
Andy


----------



## jgermuga (Jan 11, 2007)

And another thing I mentioned earlier is a true inconvenience. The C70 trunk button to get the roof out of the way. Talk about "fussy".


----------



## PaulZooms (Dec 16, 2006)

*Re: (jgermuga)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jgermuga* »_And another thing I mentioned earlier is a true inconvenience. The C70 trunk button to get the roof out of the way. Talk about "fussy".

While inconvenient, at least the C70 doesn't need to have the top up to access the trunk storage area like the G6!


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: (PaulZooms)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PaulZooms* »_
While inconvenient, at least the C70 doesn't need to have the top up to access the trunk storage area like the G6!


Yeah that's the truth, the G6s trunkspace does a magic disappearing act when the roof comes off...


----------



## flheat (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: (gizmopop)*

Road & Track did a comparison this month on the premium 4 seat convertibles including the BMW 328 hardtop, Audi A4 2.0T Cabriolet, Saab 2.0, Eos 3.2 and C70 T5. I have not read the article but apparently they were ranked in the order I just listed. I do not have the article, but can someone who has read it share more detail on the justification? The Eos had the highest HP and Torque of all and $400 more than the cheapest (c70).


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

*Re: (flheat)*

I own an S40 T5, which is what the C70 is based on. I also test drove the C70 as soon as my dealer got one in. They are difficult to get despite the price, but I'm also sure Volvo isn't building them as fast as they can.
I ended up getting the Eos, but thought in my head that I would clearly plunk down the extra money for the Volvo because the Eos wouldn't measure up. Honestly, I love my S40, but it's much less expensive than the C70. I felt the Eos was a much better value for the money, was just as refined if not more refined and had a more sporty ride that I was looking for. If you wanted something more dampened, then I guess the C70 would be better. I also felt that the Eos was better ergonomically designed. Everything is at my fingertips.
The 2.0T was definitely faster, and also came with very nice transmission options. While the S40/C70 both have decent transmissions (6mt/5at), you can only really get the automatic with manumatic mode unless you special order, and it isn't as responsive as the DSG gearbox. Having also looked at TTs and A4 Cabrios, I saw the Eos on par with the Audis in build quality. They even share the same powerplants. 
I considered performance upgrade possibilities, and they are more difficult to find for Volvos as well as more expensive. Heico provides an ECU upgrade for the 2.5T engine, but costs well over $1K plus labor to install if you can find a certified place to do it in the US. The 2.0T has numerous tuning companies who provide this for about half the cost and provide more power overall.
The only thing I did like better about the C70 was all the storage areas that could be closed so the contents wouldn't blow around. Other than that, I couldn't see any advantages for the Volvo. I couldn't justify the nearly $9K difference in MSRP. It actually was a higher price differential since the Volvo dealer wasn't willing to budge on the price of the C70, while VW did come below invoice for me. So I actually saved about $10K by getting the Eos and ended up with a better car IMHO. I don't really understand the Motor Trend review at all, but they tend to follow party line in many cases-If something costs more it is clearly better.


_Modified by kpiskin at 4:27 PM 4-24-2007_


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: (flheat)*


_Quote, originally posted by *flheat* »_Road & Track did a comparison this month on the premium 4 seat convertibles including the BMW 328 hardtop, Audi A4 2.0T Cabriolet, Saab 2.0, Eos 3.2 and C70 T5. I have not read the article but apparently they were ranked in the order I just listed. I do not have the article, but can someone who has read it share more detail on the justification? The Eos had the highest HP and Torque of all and $400 more than the cheapest (c70).

I can't wait to read what they said, and how they justified everything.


----------



## archiea (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: (gizmopop)*

I figured I'd post these images of the two dash's for the cars, since the author of the article took the time. While at first I appreciated the boldness of the volvo dash, the practicality of the EOS won me over, plus its also a nice looking, albeit more traditional, dash. 
volvo:









Eos:


----------



## archiea (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: (archiea)*

more interior comparisons...
C70








Eos:


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

*Re: (archiea)*

I own an S40 T5 (nearly identical to C70 interior) as my other car, and I like the interior, but feel that the Eos interior is slightly nicer quality and a little better laid out.


----------



## ASurroca (Sep 3, 2001)

*Re: (kpiskin)*

@ kipskin
How is the waterfall center console in the S40/C70? From the pictures above, it looks like the gear shift knob would get in the way of the HVAC controls?
I find if funny how the reviews don't seem to mind the huge price disparity between the Eos and the C70 btw. Even if the Eos weren't as good (which from this thread any my test-driving impressions I seriously doubt), the price savings would be enough to give it the nod over the C70.


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

*Re: (ASurroca)*

Honestly the Eos is better, I would have traded my S40 in for a C70 otherwise. 
The shifter on the C70/S40 doesn't get in the way, but the wafer thin console is really just a marketing gimmick. It doesn't really offer anything functional other than a small storage area in front of the console. The storage area could have easily gone in front of or under the console and probably could have been larger.
A fully loaded brand new S40T5 would run you about $34K (minus nav). Volvo adds on another $10-13K more just because it's a hard top convertible. I think there is a lot of markup there. The other issue is that VW dealers are willing to come down below MSRP where my Volvo dealer expected full MSRP and each car was special ordered. I had my pick of the litter at VW.


----------



## gizmopop (Feb 6, 2000)

*Re: (gizmopop)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gizmopop* »_
I can't wait to read what they said, and how they justified everything.

Well I read the comparo, and I'm still confused( no, not really). They need to show what you are getting in the other cars for the as tested price.
You could only get the base Volvo C70 for the price of a fully loaded Eos 3.2. You can't tell me you are getting features that Eos comes with in the base versions of the others in the comparo.


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

*Re: (gizmopop)*

What I've gotten from all these reviews is they hit the EOS on being smaller in storage and back seat area. I don't see this as a problem for me, so I can negate those opinions. If you factor back seat/storage space concerns out, the Eos typically wins out in performance and handling. I also think people saying the C70 has a better interior is highly subjective. Testers wow over the thin console, but it doesn't really do anything.


----------

