Who is more sporty--Volvo or Toyota?

[kmchow]

New and interesting topic for "D" (debate!)

Between these two companies, who has an overall more sportier image? This can be answered in many different ways. Criteria can be:

1) Depends on which form motorsport--most likely Touring cars since this is the forum, but can mix a little of F1,rallying in. But not too much.
2) Depends on which country/continent you are from.
3) Manufacturer wise.
4) Any others

Why I ask? Many reasons.

Cause I recall reading about how Volvo Sweden/Europe is obviously very pleased with their seemingly total image makeover-from old geezer to cool/sporty. Any comments?

However, Volvo USA still can't seem to accept/see any point in motorsport involvement.

While Toyota doesn't have much, if any, involvement in touring cars motorsport in Europe anymore. They still a bit active in rallying.

So I conclude that Volvo has a more sportier touring car image than Toyota. Agree or disagree?

[Alfa Fan]

Toyota.

[Troy Revill]

I would say Toyota but Volvo are awsome I used to love their estate's ^_^

[woodyracing]

Volvo might be involved in touring cars, but Toyota has recently been in rallying, F1 and GT (LeMans).

Toyota also has sports cars for the road (supra, celica, MR2 etc etc), so Id say Toyota.

[Bluebottle]

From a product point of view, it has to be Toyota- they have the MR2 which is as close to the traditional idea of a sports car as the mass-producers get these days. The tearm 'sporty' when used by the car image-makers probably bears no relation whatsoever to motorsport
-but in Motorsport, Volvo have never attempted anything like Toyotas GT1, have Volvo ever raced at Le Mans?

[calais]

neither!!!!!!!

[StuiE]

quiet Bogan boy

Toyota for sure: F1, CART, STs plus some good road cars, like WR said:
Supra (even if they dont bring them here )

MR2 (the Turbo version of the superseeded MR2 was good (mmm, mid engine) but again they didnt bring them here) the new MR2 has lost a bit of it edge with being smaller and less power (and no Turbo option, here or any where)

Celica the new one is good (but il'd prefer a GT4 version)

Chaser, Turbo Rear drive coupe only in Japan, its nice


Volvo: the only nice car is the C70 and S40 T4, and they have not done much in racing(compared to Toyota), only BTCC

[Hobson]

Volvo used to race the mental 240 Turbo in ETCC!

And they rallied in the 60's with the 123 GT/Amazons

[TimD]

Volvo 1800 Coupes used to run in the Sebring races...

Incidentally, the 850T5 Estate, bizarrely, handles and goes better than the C70 Coupe!

[elephino]

Not forgetting the 850 and S40 Super Tourers and now the S60 ETCC car.

The problem is both Toyota and Volvo have too many boring cars in their ranges. And even the supposedly good cars are not necessarily that good.

Just a week or so ago I drove a P1800 up into the Blue Mountains. There was also a 2001 S60 T5 along for the trip. I had a drive but I prefered the P1800 because the S60 just didn't go as it should have gone.

Toyota:
Celica - nice try, getting old.
MR2 - I prefered the old one. No manual version!
Corolla Levin - needs more power.
Supra - Old but still good though fat.

Volvo:
S40 T4 - nice little car, needs better handling and a little less turbo lag.
S60 T5 - read above. Just doesn't give the shove 184kw should (this was a manual I drove too).
V70R - very nice. Well hidden in the range, just not "sold" by Volvo.
S80 T6 - Yawn. 200kw, you'd never know.
850 T5 (200kw) - just adding this one as I know someone with it. It flies. It's an auto and had a new chip and boost raised a touch. But a lot better to drive than the S60.

[josvandeperre]

I was once a class winner in the FIA Historic Saloon car racing championship in a Volvo 122 - believe me it was better suited to being a rally car - having said that it does not really gain a sporty image either way - CSCC has two toyotas racing against no volvos which makes sense to me

[umbro]

Toyota without a doubt. I've always liked the Volvo 480. But even with their new and much improved image, it's going take some time to shake off their reputation as being more "workman like" than sporty. Unfortunately as soon as someone says "Volvo" to me; I can't help but think "340", need I say more....

[Hobson]

Originally posted by josvandeperre
I was once a class winner in the FIA Historic Saloon car racing championship in a Volvo 122 - believe me it was better suited to being a rally car - having said that it does not really gain a sporty image either way - CSCC has two toyotas racing against no volvos which makes sense to me

As you already know, my Dad raced a 132S in CSCC, and maybe I'll follow in his footsteps........?
I've got a 1969 132S B20 with twin carbs, almost as fast as the GT. just needs a whole lot of welding.
A couple of other Volvos have been in the CSCC aswell, Peter Defee comes to mind. Check the class winners page on the CTCRC site for the '80s.

[Neil C]

That's like asking who's sexier, Grandma Moses or Minnie Pearl.

[Quadrifoglio]

I have to agree with Neil C. My company just ordered me a Volvo S60 Turbo Diesel which I will drive while I am at work. I will stick with my Alfa Spider series 4 when I want fun. I advise all bored Jap and Swedish owners to get a new Alfa 156 GTA, they are awesome and they make the right noise

[kmchow]

Well, street cars aside, I think Volvo, in recent years, has been more enthusiastic about promoting a good touring car image than Toyota has been.
Personally, I think spending more money on touring cars instead of F1 is better for Toyota's image. Toyota still refuses to set up a contingency award/prize money in the US. Honda/BMW/Mazda and now Subaru have them. Why not Toyota?