Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





New S40/V50

1353638404154

Comments

  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    http://www.pbs.org/mpt/motorweek/search.shtml
    click "2004 Mazda3" under "Recent Road Tests"

    With only 5 gears:
    “2004 Mazda3

     Engine 2.3-liter twin-cam 4-cylinder

     Horsepower 160

     Torque 150 lb feet

     0-60 mph 7.7 seconds

     1/4 mile 16.1 seconds @ 90 mph

     60-0 mph 118 feet

     EPA Mileage 25 mpg city
    32 mpg highway

     MotorWeek's
    mileage loop 27 mpg
    mixed city/highway”

    “The Mazda3's front MacPherson strut/rear multi-link suspension was developed by Ford. It gives the 3 an extremely tight, nimble feel. Turn-in is quick, grip impressive, and balance superb. There's almost no front push or plow, and very little body roll. The power rack-and-pinion STEERING is very precise, delivering HIGH LEVEL OF FEEDBACK. It's an impressive performance, and well above the levels of the Protege and its competitors.”

    Compare to the Volvo sibling also wearing sport suspenion & 17"s, I wonder why? Could it be Mazda's firmer bushings?

    (S40 T-5)“Handling, with or without optional Electronic Stability Control, is a big improvement over the first S40. The strut front, rear multi-link suspension in Sport Package trim is European taut without being stiff. Body roll is modest, and while the electro-hydraulic STEERING LACKS ROAD FEEL, it does have a good weight to it. Like the powertrains, there is a much sportier, nimble feel with a low level of front plow, much like a good rear-wheel drive European sport sedan. But the price for that prowess is a car that transitions to oversteer quicker than most front drive sedans.”

    “2004.5 Volvo S40

     Engine 2.5-liter twin-cam I-5

     Horsepower 218

     Torque 236 lb feet

     0-60 mph 6.9 seconds

     1/4 mile 15.2 seconds @ 97 mph

     60-0 mph 119 feet

     EPA Mileage 25 mpg city
    31 mpg highway

     MotorWeek's
    mileage loop 27 mpg
    mixed city/highway”

    “2004 Acura TSX

     Engine 2.4-liter DOHC 4-cylinder

     Horsepower 200

     Torque 166 lb feet

     0-60 mph 7.6 seconds

     1/4 mile 15.9 seconds @ 90 mph

     60-0 mph 126 feet

     EPA Mileage 21 mpg city
    29 mpg highway”

    What a waste of (premium)gas! That’s why cars w/ weak low-end suck. Even though the S40 2.4i revs loudly like a vacumn cleaner, at least it doesn’t need to rev as often as the TSX or even the Mazda 3S.
  • benjaminsbenjamins Posts: 56
     MotorWeek's
    mileage loop 27 mpg
    mixed city/highway”

    “The Mazda3's front MacPherson strut/rear multi-link suspension was developed by Ford. It gives the 3 an extremely tight, nimble feel. Turn-in is quick, grip impressive, and balance superb. There's almost no front push or plow, and very little body roll. The power rack-and-pinion STEERING is very precise, delivering HIGH LEVEL OF FEEDBACK. It's an impressive performance, and well above the levels of the Protege and its competitors.”

    Compare to the Volvo sibling also wearing sport suspenion & 17"s, I wonder why? Could it be Mazda's firmer bushings?

    "(S40 T-5)“Handling, with or without optional Electronic Stability Control, is a big improvement over the first S40. The strut front, rear multi-link suspension in Sport Package trim is European taut without being stiff. Body roll is modest, and while the electro-hydraulic STEERING LACKS ROAD FEEL, it does have a good weight to it. Like the powertrains, there is a much sportier, nimble feel with a low level of front plow, much like a good rear-wheel drive European sport sedan. But the price for that prowess is a car that transitions to oversteer quicker than most front drive sedans.” "

    Maybe it is just the overall feel of Volvo vs. other cars. There's no reason why the Volvos steering should feel different *that* much different. Maybe it is just the way Volvo sets up suspensions that things subjectively feel filtered. I don't know. Maybe the Volvo actually has more road feel than the testers perceive. The Volvo is going for a different ride, less sporty. Like I said, Volvo is essentially a grand touring car, they don't really make sports sedans.

    Mazda has stiffer bushings?
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    Mazda also relocated the front swaybar mounting points to let the bar do a tighter job. Also, Mazda uses their own quicker-ratio Japanese steering rack.

    This T-5 is already w/ sport suspension & 17" wheels, not the regular touring T-5.

    As I test drove the Mazda3, which has sport-tuned suspension std, w/ 16"s vs the S40 2.4i w/ sport suspension & 16"s, I found them both fairly similar except the Volvo has less harshness along w/ less road noise. So it's pretty obvious that the Volvo has softer bushings like the Focus II. Thank God the steering feedback didn't become completely washed out like the TSX.

    Also, the Volvo's sport suspension has slightly less abrupt rebound in the shock setting than the Mazda3, which always bounces right back after each bump as if there are only firm springs & no shocks.

    Interestingly, my experience w/ both Mazda & Volvo is that both steerings feel natural & allow me to steer intuitively despite limited steering feedback, although the Mazda somehow feels too light(especially for its quicker ratio) while the Volvo feels a tad less on the surface details but still changes weighing nicely upon tire-grip change. The TSX's lack of tire-grip feel went too far & bugged the hell out of me. Part of the reason the TSX's steering feels artificial is due to some disruption of the strong centering action & that further covers up the weighing change due to tire slipperage.

    During intentional abrupt twisting of the steering wheel on the drive-event track, the Mazda's steering pump couldn't catch up & created intermittent "freeze", & that sucks. It didn't happen on the Volvo, but then the Volvo was on a wet track, which might not demand as much power assist.
  • josh684josh684 Posts: 55
    Im not getting good mileage like that. At 75 MPH it tells me I get 29.5 MPG. In the city I average 18, thats with the 2.4i. I put regular gas in, im gonna try with midgrade to see if its worth the extra money.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    since the TSX has almost 90% of its torque at around 2000 rpms i would say the TSX isn't the low-end torque car you imply it is. but because of the TSX's weight it can be argued that it just doesn't have enough torque.

    are you implying the mazda 3s has better low end torque than the TSX? you got to be kidding. this engine is probably more lively in the 3 than the 6 but it's lacking compared to honda's 2.4l.

    the maxda 3 lineup is probably the cream of the crop in its class, but i don't think too many people are cross shopping this car despite its track numbers with the S40 or TSX.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    I wouldn't get the sport body kit, which is $2k in addition to the $750 sport package(including the beautiful but harsher-riding 17"s for the T-5).

    The S40 needs the $750 sport-suspension sport package in order to include the fog lights & 6.5"-wide alloys outside, & the T-tech fabric & aluminum trim inside. Except the (busy-riding & less-comfortable)sport suspension, the T-5 has all of them std plus leather shift knob, audio controls on the steering wheel, trip computer, dual-zone auto climate control & power driver seat even w/o the "hot in the summer & cold in the winter" leather! The manual seat-height crank actually wears out pretty fast, as the Mazda3's w/ identical parts at the drive events already...

    The TSX offers 6-sp manual as a no-cost option over the 5-sp auto.

    So if a 6-sp manual is worth as much as a 5-sp auto, & the T-5 actually gives you $1200 back for getting the 6-sp...

    Counting the $450 metallic paint, a 2.4i auto w/ sport package(but no $2k sport body kit) is already $400 shy of a white(or black or red) T-5 6-sp w/ all those std equipments!!!

    Unlike the 2.4i, the T-5 can also get the wood trim free of charge w/o upgrading to the premium package.

    The $22-23k premium package is actually a good deal for those of you who like leather & moonroof, both of which I hate.

    The $850-900 premium sound does not include the $1100 trunk subwoofer. I'll skip the latter & put the $ on the $700 bi-xenon & $695 DSC.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    When I said "cars w/ weak low-end suck", I was referring to a lot of revving required frequently, & therefore, wastes gas. Honda engines are suppose to be more efficient than anyone else's. Why do you think the Saturn Vue picked the Honda V6?

    "are you implying the mazda 3s has better low end torque than the TSX? you got to be kidding. this engine is probably more lively in the 3 than the 6 but it's lacking compared to honda's 2.4l."

    Wouldn't it be nice if Mazda & Honda merge so they can just drop in the 2.4(even the regular-gas one from the Accord) into the 3? ;-)

    Between 6-7k rpm, the TSX is mighty powerful but still churns out similar overall track number as the 3S. So that means at lower rpms, the lighter-weight 3 must have some edge over the TSX.
  • socal007socal007 Posts: 23
    Re: Coupe to be released this summer.......
    Does anyone have a link to a recent foto ???
    The convertible looks sweet.....but the coupe is supposed to be different, according to reports.
    A sporty looking hatchback ????
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    The convertible C50 is approx 1 yr away.
    It will feature a retracting hardtop.
    So it will look like a coupe with the roof up.

    No word on whether or not we will recieve a fixed roof car as well.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,150
    the V50 ain't a coupe.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • I know, I know,
    Couple of things:
    #1. I swear, I saw a reference to V50 in the original message, and when I was looking, I was thinking that V usually stands for the wagon. But,
    #2. The movie looked cool, and I decided to post those links regardless of my doubts.
  • josh684josh684 Posts: 55
    Is there any free serivce for volvo 3 years/36k? Free oil changes or something of that sort? Also, I was wondering....Are EPA MPG, do that figure in Premium Fuel?

    Thanks
    Josh
  • josh684josh684 Posts: 55
    Inside the gas tank, its list what my tires should be inflated to. Its says 36 PSI, if I am carrying 5 people....30 PSI if i normally only ride with 3. What advantage do I get when tires are inflated only to 30 PSI?
  • Softer ride and more even wear.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "What advantage do I get when tires are inflated only to 30 PSI?"

    Larger foot-print during braking.

    Since I corner a lot, my tire wear tend to be more on the outer side. So I usually inflate to 44 psi, as the tires will lose pressure gradually anyway. Then flip inside out during mid life to even out the wear, as most radial tires today allow that.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "Is there any free serivce for volvo 3 years/36k?"

    I believe so.

    "Free oil changes or something of that sort?"

    Only every..., not every 3 months or 3k mi.

    "Also, I was wondering....Are EPA MPG, do that figure in Premium Fuel?"

    If the tags on the car sez premium unleaded required, then yes.
  • capriracercapriracer Somewhere in the USPosts: 793
    Here's what you give up!

    Fuel economy, wet traction, snow traction, steering crispness, and tire durability.

    I think it is better to always use the higher value. Then you'll never overload your tires.

    Hope this helps.
  • For our education can you elaborate a bit? It would be really interesting to learn more details about the process.
    My understanding of tire mechanics is that you need the "optimal" size of contact patch. Therefore tire manufacturers provide several sets of recommended pressures for the different load conditions, that will allow for that optimum and do not advise both - over pressure and under pressure.

    Also my understanding is that you trade fuel economy and "crispness" of steering for safety, and I am not sure of how the slightly bigger (and actually optimal, recommended) contact patch can reduce the wet and snow traction. My understanding is that it is other way around.

    I would appreciate if you can provide the links to some info. My knowledge is based on some internet reading and on what I have learned when I was 17 - almost 30 years ago, The technology could change...
This discussion has been closed.