hi!! with (another!!) baby on the way, my options are a 7 seat conversion for my 855, or buy an MPV!! Dont fancy the latter (and too short on cash!), but I've always had my reservations about the seats in the back of these cars - they do seem a bit of an afterthought and surely the rear of the car is designed to crumple in the event of being rear-ended, not a nice thought with your kids sitting in the back!!

Any comments much appreciated!!

Kevin

There aren't many good options for 7 people in one car. I'm convinced that, provided two of them are between 40 and 88 lbs, a Volvo is better than most. Mercedes E320 is probably the best; a Taurus wagon has bench seats to accommodate 8. I grew up in the third seat of large American station wagons. There are deficiencies to the third seat, as the another poster mentioned, but I do not think these are critical. True, the mini-van comports nicely with the suburban American lifestyle -- but isn't that all the more reason to avoid it?

Lack of storage space is an issue. A small folding stroller could fit between the 2nd and 3rd seat backs -- there is actually a measurable amount of storage there. And, you've go the roof, which is a lot more accessible than a mini-van's. Is it worth burning the extra gas to carry seldom-used storage space everywhere you go?

You cannot use car seats in the back. But, this does not apply to booster seats -- the third seat is essentially a booster -- rated for 40-88 lbs, and actually comes with a booster cushion. So, no problem putting your booster-seat aged kid in the back. A child at the high end of the range may not be very happy on long trips, but are they ever?

Safety of the 3rd seat during a rear-end collision is often raised. This is a classic risk assessment problem. It is complex and we tend to resort to emotion, discarding the least familiar even when it is better. A couple points to consider:

1. It has been reported various places, although I cannot find it in official documents, that the station wagon does not have the same rear crumple zones as sedans. I would tend to believe this to be the case, especially given that the rear ends of these cars do not share sheet metal.

2. Danger from rear-end impact is relatively mild compared to front-end. In 2003, there were 38,252 U.S. vehicle fatalities. 2,076 were rear end. While 3,986 were front-end collision with a moving car, some 18,000 additional fatalities were from collisions with other objects. (see the NHTSA report), for about a factor of 10 increase in risk from front-end versus rear-end impact.

Generally, you don't back up at high speed into another moving vehicle. The exceedingly rare worst case of getting rear-ended while stopped on a freeway is less severe than a common front-end collision on a residential city street.

However, the rear is significantly safer than any other seat in a front-end impact. We don't have real data on 3rd seat safety, but this is an accepted statement. If the 3rd seat is ten times more vulnerable to rear end and half as vulnerable to front-end (which is heavily biased against the 3rd seat), you are still safer overall in the 3rd seat due to the relative rarity of serious rear-end collision.

I think you could formalize this by looking at the ratios of injury to fatalities for various collisions. For example, the ratio of rear-end fatalities to rear-end injuries is only 0.003 while front-end fatalities to front-end injuries is 0.06 suggesting front-end collisions are 20 times deadlier than rear-end. Some of this is due to the decreased energy available in rear-end collisions and some due to facing away from the collision; both factors tend to suggest the 3rd seat is a good place to be.

3. Now look at side impact, 9,184 fatalities. In the 3rd seat, you are farther inboard than the 2nd and between the wheels. That's got to be a lot safer. And again, this is reduced exposure to to a more dangerous risk than the rear-end collision.

4. So, what about the mini-van? Look at how close that mini-van third seat is to the rear bumper! (Or for that matter, the back seat of a typical subcompact hatchback, like Civic.) And, you are facing forward so your head is only inches inside the rear glass, about where your shins are in the Volvo. Meanwhile, the Volvo's rear-facing seat puts the head and torso well inside the vehicle. And, for this increased rear-end exposure, you are no better off in front-end collisions. There is no a priori basis to think the third seat of a mini-van is safer than the 3rd seat of a Volvo -- if anything it is less safe.

5. Finally, consider how much safer the vehicle is overall compared to a mini-van (rollover, brakes, maneuverability), making it much less likely to get into a crash in the first place. In this Ralph Nader world, we forget that a car does not need to be safe (passive safety) if you can avoid getting hit in the first place (active safety)! There is no way I can believe a mini-van is safer than a Volvo wagon -- even especially the 3rd seat.


Last time I brought the wagon in for service, Volvofinders gave me a mini-van as a loner. If their goal was to make me frantic to get my car back, they succeeded!

-Eric

Looks good up to #4... What exactly do you mean? If you measure the distance between the back of the third seat in a Volvo and a typical minivan, the distances are very comparable. As for the maneuverability, the minivans indeed are different. Having said that, however, MPV is almost as good as Volvo (I have both).

"Looks good up to #4... What exactly do you mean? If you measure the distance between the back of the third seat in a Volvo and a typical minivan, the distances are very comparable."


Well, not sure what exactly you mean. I assume you mean the distance between the back of the 3rd seat and the bumper of a Volvo is comparable to the distance between the 3rd seat back rest and the bumber of a typical minivan. I am suggesting that they are not nearly comparable. I lack measurements, but have visually compared them side by side. If anyone has a tyical minivan (eg Dodge Caravan, not Grand Caravan), it would be interesting to compare the actual measured distance.

We can infer the dimension from published specs this way: The cargo volume behind the 3rd seat of a Dodge Caravan (*not* Grand Caravan) is 15 cubic feet. If the cargo area were only 3 feet wide and 3 feet high (we can be sure it is wider and higher), that gives us 20 inches (15 ft^3 / 9 ft^2) between the seat back and the tail gate as a very high estimate. If the cargo space were 4 feet by 4 feet, that gives us just under 12 inches as a more realistic estimate. The vehicle is 6.5 feet wide overall and if you subtract total height from rear lift-over, you get 3.75 feet as the height of the cargo space. So, 4x4 is still a low estimate on the area and the distance is likely less than a foot, which is what I have estimated visually.

So, no matter how you cut it, the seat back -- and passenger's head -- of the 3rd seat in a Caravan is closer to the rear or the vehicle than the back of a rear-facing 3rd seat in a stationwagon.

-Eric

I found that the 3rd seat is less useful than I was hoping it would be.

Basically, it's something nice to have for occasional use, but I can't recommend it as a permanent solution. For one thing, whith the 3rd seat in use, where will you put a stroller and all the other stuff? Even if it will fit somehow, you would have to strap everything down to make sure it doesn't end up on top of your kid. Pretty inconvenient. But that's not all. A rear-facing infant seat can't be installed on a rear facing seat. And the booster seat (Cosco) for our oldest says you should not use it on a rear facing seat either. I don't see why, but that's what it says. However, if you have a child that's big enough to ride without a booster, the safety belt will be positioned too high (across their neck) because of the way it's mounted. Booster seats with back rests have the belt guide which helps that, but manufacturer may say don't use it that way, see above - catch 22...
I assume the baby you are expecting is No.3 .. The trouble is one can't fit three child seats on the rear seat. All the child seats on the market are just too damn wide, at least from what I've seen.
About the safety factor, I saw some statement by a Volvo engineer saying it is very safe (can't find the weblink now). But I am not so sure what would happen in collision with an SUV.

Soooo, in my opinion, if you need to haul 3 or more kids, bite the bullet and buy a minivan.
--
'97 850 n/a Wagon, 120K mi

hey! thanks to you both.............the expectant child is acutally number 4!!!

ive also got an s70 - but my wife moans we can run two such expensive cars (and ive got a 144 as a hobby! it only did 53 miles last year and she says its a waste of money!) - the s70 will no doubt go soon................

i say to her the eldest is 15, and never wants to come out with us, and the other 2 are 8 and 6, so with a baby we could fit all 3 across existing rear seats.............just!

and if we go out as whole family, yes it will mean 2 cars! but that is rare. I dont like idea of 3rd row of seats, but like idea of MPV even less! not after my 264, 244, 745 turbo, 940, s70/855/144!! and i trained as volvo tech (not in trade anymore, but you get the idea!) i 'gave up' when 940's were current, but ive really taken to the 5 cylinders/fwd and do any job on them. while i was in the trade, i rarely saw a 245 with 3rd row, and only one 945 with them! and both cars are cd trim - cant get that in mpv! and im out of cash now too!!