Yea, my GTI plus $30,000 in work and I know who would be kicking a$$.
Or an R and $20,000 in work. Even better. Plus custom paint job.
I understand what you're saying and it is true but that's not a fair comparison. I notice comparisons like this all the time. Yeah financially it makes sense. You take the difference and spend that amount and you'll be running circles around the Volvo, but if you look at it from a tuning stand point it makes no sense. It's like when the Civic Type R came out and everyone was saying ok, a stage 2 GTI will shit on the Type R. Ok, true but if I do intercooler, down pipe, exhaust and tune on a type r, then we are right back where we started. Yes the price is different but car to car it's not even close. What's this thing about comparing tuned cars to stock cars. The Volvo is in a completely different class, and a completely different type of car. Also, at the end of the day, when I tell people I drive a VW, 75% of them immediately say oh what a jetta? People that don't care about cars don't see the amount of money and time I put in mine. But when these people that don't know about cars see a BMW, Benz, Volvo or etc they think it's nice just because there's a standard. Just this morning I saw a Cadillac ATS-V and thought to myself.. "man I would love to run this thing, I could probably take it." Then I realized doesn't matter, it's still an amazing car leaps and bounds ahead of mine. I'm not saying what you said is incorrect but when you start comparing like that, anything is possible. I can take a civic eg hatch and put 100,000 in it and smoke a lamborghini. But what does that really mean? Guess to each their own, but in my opinion I always rather have the nicer car.
Cool cars, but not for $60K.
Too many other options at that price pt.
This is true. Although I love the Volvo XC 90 and XC60, and Volvo has come a long way from what I remember, there are better options like the ATS-V mentioned above lol. Or maybe benz c43/bmw 340i... possibly M3 base model.