Spy Photos: 2011 Volvo V60 Wagon Caught In Full Production Trim

I've never been much of a wagon person, but that is one good looking wagon!!!!

Volvo, once the poster-brand for ultimate function and practicality, continues down the path of style over function.

Yeah, it's great looking, but the rear visibility suffers, with a severely tapered small rear-quarter window, and a small(er) rear window.

If it is priced just below a BMW 3 series wagon, it will probably succeed, and it seems to have more space in it than the tiny 3.

i like it....that is HOT. & come on rsholland.... Volvo HAD to give up some (not all) practicality for sales....like it WITH me here brother.

yikes...not a fan of the front end. it looks very elantra touring from the front quarter.

isaacl says:
"i like it....that is HOT. & come on rsholland.... Volvo HAD to give up some (not all) practicality for sales..."

I don't believe that for a minute. They had a lock on the practical/functional market for decades, but have since sold their soul to the almighty styling god. At least the XC90 still pretty much holds true to their original beliefs, but not their wagons.

I dunno. From the A-pillar rearward, it looks like a SAAB. The front clip looks like it's sat in the hot sun too long. Very droopy. Love the wheels though!

There's more glass around the D-pillar than is in the CTS wagon. Having sat in the CTS wagon, I can say that the blind spot is not nearly as bad as it seems to be. Has practicality suffered to make room for styling with the V60? Sure. But, in my opinion, it's no more than a marginal compromise to make a more appealing wagon for the masses.

The trick for Volvo is to price this thing appropriately. ed124c suggests slightly below a 3-Series wagon (which starts at $35,700). I would say that this is a bit too expensive for this vehicle. Volvo is not a Tier 1 luxury brand, and I don't think they have the demand to justify a price competitive to other Tier 1 luxury brands. The V70 started at $33,550. To be competitive and still reap a profit, pricing the base V60 around $30-$31,500 would be optimal. I'm sure it's not as big as the V70, and I would assume the base model would offer comparable features to the base model V50. At that price, the V50 could still maintain its price point and not cannibalize sales. Or, more to my liking, reduce the price of the base V50 to somewhere around $26,500-$27,500, which I think is more appropriate for a 5 year old design on a compact, Tier 2 wagon...

flicmod says:
"There's more glass around the D-pillar than is in the CTS wagon. Having sat in the CTS wagon, I can say that the blind spot is not nearly as bad as it seems to be."

I too have sat in the CTS wagon—and yes, the rear blind spot caused by the thick "D" pillar is bad.

Sorry, I just don't buy the argument that it's okay to sacrifice some practicality (in this case rear visibility) so that it looks good. Nowhere is it written in stone that you can't have your cake and eat it too, meaning good looks and good rear visibility.

looks good! Let's hope the Chinese won't ruin the quality.

the rearward visibility may not be an issue since they'll prolly put a back up camera in it....

Nicely done. Too bad I'll never own one.

@ rsholland,

I'm not saying that the CTS wagon's D-pillar is great. I'm saying that it's not nearly as bad as was made out to be when the concept was debuted and the first images were published. Could it be better? Without a doubt. Is it a hindrance which causes safety concerns? Not at all.

My first car was a 1990 Honda Civic. The pillars on that thing were pencil thin. No blind spots whatsoever. My next (and current) vehicle was an Acura TSX. Due to the inclusion of side-impact airbags, the A-pillars were thickened, as were the C-pillars due to styling. Did it require an adjustment? Of course. Was it a sincere safety concern? Not really. I adjusted rather quickly to the pillars being thicker. It actually forced me to look side to side and around the pillars in order to be more aware of what was around me. And I believe most people feel the same way about it.

Bottom line is that thicker pillars aren't as big of a concern as they were once thought to be when they started seeing more production. I chalk up much of their dislike to people that have always driven smaller, older cars that had no visibility issues at all; like my '90 Civic. It's an adjustment, no doubt. But a small one that almost all drivers have the ability to make. The V60 isn't any different and I would say that it's not nearly as bad as some like the CTS wagon or even the Cube or many "lifted" wagons such as the Venza.

The V60 will do just fine in this department.

These high beltline, tiny window styles continue to be ridiculous. If the humongous doors are for safety purposes (maybe stop intrusion of SUV bumpers ? ) then i will grudgingly accept them.

If they're some sort of collective delusion of current car stylists the world over then i just can't wait for the fad to pass.

flicmod says:
"I chalk up much of their dislike to people that have always driven smaller, older cars that had no visibility issues at all"

Precisely—but not just smaller cars. Look at the two previous generations of Volvo wagons. They're not smaller cars, yet had much better rear visibility. Why? Bigger rear windows. The frosting on the cake was that they were rather pleasing to my eyes as well.

This styling fad (and that's what it is—a "fad") towards smaller and smaller rear windows and smaller rear-quarter windows is a bad one. The sooner it passes, the better.

Heck, I'm old enough to remember people defending fins on cars as being a great styling feature. Well, we know how that ended. This is no different.

One more thing...

Volvo has always been about safety. That being the case how in the world do they defend smaller windows as being safer than larger windows?

Oh I suppose they can add an expensive rear camera to do the work that a cheaper larger rear window can do. Now that makes a lot of sense. Not.

Very nice. Is this coming to the states?

If Volvo is going to abandon the squared-off, practical station wagon, I sure hope some other decent manufacturer rises to the occasion and gives us that choice. Older Volvo wagons were distinctive and attractive while being utterly practical. They appealed to those who really did not like cars as well as those who appreciated Volvo characteristics and a roomy, practical wagon.

Volvo and Mercedes-Benz E-Class wagons were the class of the field in that respect, and had a very devoted following. BMW and Audi wagons looked lovely but sacrificed some practicality, Passat wagon and Saab 9-5 wagon were pretty decent alternatives with a good mix of design and function, if less cargo volume than Volvo and Benz.

rsholland says:

09:33 AM, 03/29/10

Volvo, once the poster-brand for ultimate function and practicality, continues down the path of style over function.

Well, they can continue to make functional bricks or they can make good looking cars and actually sell some.

flwind says:
"Well, they can continue to make functional bricks or they can make good looking cars and actually sell some."

Recent Volvos have been very attractive, plus the driver can see behind the vehicle with ease; not so much with this new Volvo. There's no reason why you can't have decent-sized windows, and still have an attractive car.

...Also, Volvo entire reputation has been built upon selling (safe) bricks. They've been doing it quite successfully for decades.

rsholland say:
Recent Volvos have been very attractive, plus the driver can see behind the vehicle with ease; not so much with this new Volvo. There's no reason why you can't have decent-sized windows, and still have an attractive car.

Only 1800 people agreed with you in the last 12 months or so. Don't get me wrong, I've loved boxy Volvo for years too....its just that numbers like us have been DECREASING. Volvo has to change my friend.

I share isaacl's comments. I've never been adverse to Volvo's traditional wagon-styling. I've always liked the V70 and it's predecessors. But, as isaacl states, sales are horrid right now. They need to worry about their numbers like every other manufacturer does. If changing the styling is what it takes to get more people buying their wagons, then so be it.

My overall point is that the feared blind spot isn't nearly as bad as everyone seems to make it out to be. Certainly it can be better. But there are plenty of people driving wagons and CUV's now with reduced rear visibility that seem to have no problem in this area. It's not an epidemic.

My stance doesn't mean I dislike traditional boxy wagons. On the contrary, I'd rather prefer them. But this craze about no rear visibility in newer wagons is grossly exaggerated. It's a fad, sure. And it'll die eventually. But, like I said, it's not some sort of safety epidemic here. It's mere styling.

Again, I disagree. I think it is epidemic. I can point to most new wagons, CUVs and SUVs (Rogue, Murano, CRV, FJ Cruiser, Crosstour, Tucson to name a few) in which the rear visibility is poor, and it's strictly based upon styling considerations. This is a styling fad, and a bad one at that. ...And if this is what it takes to sell cars, then shame on the customers who are demanding (or allowing) this, and shame on the manufacturers for falling pray to this styling gimmick.

I'm looking at this new Volvo wagon and it appears to have at least 25% less rear visibility than the outgoing model, probably more. That's not good, especially for a brand who's image is largely based on safety.

Agree to disagree then.

ill be gentle... this car looks like one of the alien heads from the movie aliens.

I emailed Volvo today to ask about future availability of the V60 and V60 R-Design models in the United States. I'll wait to hear a response. I certainly enjoy looking and learning about the vehicle on Volvo's international websites. I would certainly consider this vehicle for lease or purchase in 2011, if the vehicle comes to the US. The only deterring factor for my decision would be if the vehicle is manufactured outside of Sweden (i.e. China).

Jå

Jå