2000 Volvo C70

Got your attention? Good, because these two droptops, although quirky in that hard-to-put-your-finger-on-it Scandinavian kind of way, are worthy, sophisticated, European-flavor, fair (and foul) weather machines.

Two convertibles from a country only slightly larger than California, but whose capital city averages a high temperature of a not-so-blistering 49 F might seem a bit ironic, but it also means they're both built with inclement weather in mind.

Some of the other convertibles in this section simply can't compare to the two topless Laplanders' ability to keep passengers cozy even when the top is lowered on chilly evenings. Both the Saab and the Volvo scored off the chart when we rated their heaters' effectiveness at 60 mph top down, and both earned extra points for their heated seat option. They also scored very high in sound/wind intrusion, even without the aid of a wind blocker, so the ability to hear the other passengers or the stereo was barely affected.

Speaking of stereos, Volvo's option SC901 adds one of the best stereos we've ever heard, convertible or hardtop.

Empirically, the two convertibles produce power and perform similarly; however, the C70's driving dynamics and chassis are far sturdier, and we observed almost no cowl shake, unlike that of the 93. Yes, the Volvo's horsepower rating is higher (190 versus 154), it's lighter in curb weight (3601 versus 3874 pounds) and should be quicker. However, our computerized test gear told a different story, with the manually shifted Saab edging slightly ahead at the end of the quarter mile. We've tested a C70 coupe with the high-pressure turbo 2.3-liter/236-horsepower engine with manual transmission-both of which are unavailable in the convertible-with much more rewarding acceleration and wish it were an optional powertrain here. Still, the C70's low-pressure turbo 2.4-liter I-5 is far more linear in its power delivery than the Saab's turbo 2.0-liter I-4. Credit the Volvo's low-rpm maximum torque figure (199 pound-feet at 1800 rpm) and the fact that it exhibits nearly zero torque steer, unlike the power-peaky, full-throttle-darty, also front-drive Saab. In this case, greater structural integrity and adept handling contradict one another. Where we expected the rigid C70 to shine, the Saab outperformed the Volvo, again, in slalom and skidpad tests.

Finally, if built-in passenger safety is a concern, the marque well known for practically inventing it doesn't fail. Both cars offer ABS; next-generation, dual, front and side airbags; two different methods of protecting passengers in case of rear impact; seatbelt pretensioners; and battleship levels of safety cage construction. But the Volvo goes a step further with its rollover protection system that deploys two steel rollbars in 0.2 second in the event the car detects either a 40-degree side-to-side or 72-degree front-to-back roll angle, or even if in "free flight."

Both Swedes were exceptionally pleasing and expectedly quirky, and the Saab 93 did marginally outperform the Volvo C70. But if we were forced to choose one topless model over the other, we'd choose the prettier one with better manners-the Volvo C70.