2001 Volvo C70 2-door Coupe Turbo Clean Carfax No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2021 Volvo XC90 Recharge Road Test Review | I could've had a T8!

Second thoughts … sometimes even buyerÂ’s remorse. Nagging doubts can follow life's big decisions — and buying a car is a biggie. Was it the right choice? Or as the poet said: "You may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile / And you may ask yourself, 'Well, how did I get here?'" Two years ago, I bought a 2017 Volvo XC90 lease return with 11,000 miles on it. I hadnÂ’t expected to find an XC90 within my budget, but this one was attractively priced because it, A) was a T5, meaning turbo-only; B) had the base Momentum interior; and C) was a third-row delete, which was a turnoff to other car shoppers. Otherwise, it was heavily optioned and seemed like it would serve my family well and keep them safe. And it has. It has lots of room. It drives as well as any medium-large SUV can. The tough leatherette endures the abuse of dogs and kids and the dirt of outdoor activities. The legendary Volvo seats have comforted and supported us, even on a 750-mile day from California to Washington. We've routinely seen highway mileage go past 30 mpg. And the off-road mode was surefooted during last month's nationwide snowfall. The carÂ’s great. And yet, while at the Volvo dealership for complimentary service, sipping the waiting-room coffee and wandering the showroom, you see the cars you could have bought, had you spent more money — a turbo-and-supercharged T6, or the twin-charged-plus-plug-in-hybrid Recharge (previously known by the powertrain's name of T8). And with Volvo's elegant Inscription interiors. Would they have provided a better ownership experience than our secondhand lower-rung model? One doesnÂ’t often get a do-over to answer such questions. But a recent week in a 2021 Volvo XC90 Recharge provided a drive down the nicer road not taken. The differences between a 2017 T5 Momentum and the 2021 Recharge Inscription are many, and also few. They're basically the same car, same dimensions inside and out, same overall feel. Panoramic sunroof, same. Massive cargo hold, same — though because ours lacks the third row, it gains a large secret underfloor storage compartment. Both XC90s have roof rails, but the rails on the new car are flush-mounted versus the '17's raised rails (youÂ’d need different crossbar towers for each).

Ford, Volvo, Google, Uber and Lyft form self-driving alliance

Five companies arguably leading the worldwide effort to develop autonomous cars said Tuesday they're forming an organization to lobby the federal government to better prepare America's roads for self-driving technology. The founding members include some of the biggest companies in the automotive, autonomous, and ride-sharing realms – Ford, Google, Lyft, Uber and Volvo. Operating as the "Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets," they aim to work with lawmakers and regulators to clarify a disparate set of rules and regulations at both the state and federal levels that could hinder the deployment of autonomous cars. "The U.S. risks losing its leading position due to the lack of federal guidelines for the testing and certification of autonomous vehicles." – Hakan Samuelsson David Strickland, a former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration who issued the first set of autonomous-related policies in that role (pictured below), will serve as the group's counsel and spokesperson. "The best path for this innovation is to have one clear set of federal standards, and the Coalition will work with policymakers to find the right solutions that will facilitate the deployment of self-driving vehicles," he said in a written statement. In January, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said his department would accelerate efforts to craft such federal standards. Those efforts include holding two public hearings on standards, the second of which is scheduled to be held Wednesday in Palo Alto, California. Foxx signaled the intent to deliver them by June. Google has been leading the efforts to ensure such standards are national in scope, warning their cars could run afoul of state-specific laws should they cross state borders or if standards varies between the federal efforts and regional ones. The complexity of such efforts was underscored recently, when NHTSA agreed that Google's software could be considered the driver of a vehicle for the purpose of meeting federal motor vehicle standards, an interpretation that would conflict with preliminary California rules that mandate a licensed driver operate a self-driving car that comes equipped with human controls like a steering wheel and brakes. At South By Southwest last month, Jennifer Haroon, Google's self-driving car business leader, said the company couldn't accomplish its goals under those regulations.

Lotus' new position: Much improved, if Volvo's experience is a guide

Out today is the news that Geely Holding will acquire controlling interest in British sports car maker Lotus Cars. While some 20 years ago the Chinese acquisition of a British automaker might have inspired grumbling from aggrieved Brits (and the handful of Lotus enthusiasts), the world has moved on. And so – thankfully – can Lotus. To suggest Lotus' business history has been checkered is to broaden the definition of "checkered." With its beginnings in the early '50s as a maker of component cars for competition, Lotus founder Colin Chapman – in a manner not unlike his postwar contemporary, Enzo Ferrari – was always hustling, living a hand-to-mouth existence in the production of road cars to support a racing program. Regrettably, Chapman never found a Fiat, as Ferrari did toward the end of the 1960s. Lotus had Ford in its corner for racing and as a resource for powertrains, and later benefited from the corporate support of both GM and Toyota for relatively short periods. Lotus Cars, however, never enjoyed the corporate buy-in that would have allowed Chapman to race and let someone else build the cars. Regardless of what Consumer Reports or Kelley Blue Book might have thought (if they had ...) about those early Lotus cars, a great many are now regarded as classics. My first knowledge of a production Lotus was when Tom McCahill, the 'dean' of automotive journalists in the US, tested an early Elan for Mechanix Illustrated. While we're still not sure, some 50 years later, how McCahill's XXL frame fit into the tiny roadster, he had nothing but praise for the Elan's athletic chassis and now-timeless design. In today's Lotus portfolio, the Elise and Exige continue that light, athletic tradition, while the larger Evora seems to strike wide – literally and figuratively – of the "less is more" ideal. With the Toyota-powered Evora, more is more. But in an eco-sensitive era demanding more of the original Chapman mantra – add lightness – there's little reason that Lotus can't regain relevance if given the financial resources. Geely's acquisition of Volvo, the fruits of which appear regularly not only in the news but on the streets, suggests the Chinese investment will provide strategic vision (along with money) while allowing Lotus talent to do what it does best: Create an exciting product. And while at various periods in its history the product has been worthy, Lotus in the US has been ill-served by a flailing dealer network.