Howdy, Stranger!

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





New S40/V50

1246736

Comments

  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    Not very charismatic, is it? That dorky profile looks just like the communist Skoda Octavia(the peasant's roomy Jetta) but even worse. LOL. & the tail lights are so authentic Hyundai Elantra-ish.

    CAR already didn't like the original model & called it lacking in charisma. & here's their recent quote:

    "Laughably misnamed minicab in waiting. Experience-free transport with woefully sloppy dynamics and a cheap-feeling cabin."

    & for the current S40:

    "Solid styling masks a fair amount of shared Mitsubishi underpinnings. Driving experience stodgy and cabins lack much surprise or delight."

    V40:

    "Estate version of the S40 offering similar dynamic disappointment but compensating with a big boot and plenty of standard-fit utility. Looks better, too. Claims that it's a BMW 3-series Touring rival are very far off the mark, though."

    Surprise isn't it? The new wonderful S40/V50 "fake" Volvo looks so much like the real thing, which is already quite good looking, & even better.

    This also reminds me - The X-Type "fake" Jaguar minimics the real thing a 110%.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    Sorry creakid, but the S40 history is not a "rumor"
    The only major structure that the Carisma and the S40 share are the floorpans.
    Mitsu also makes the motor mounts and turbo for that car. Also the electronics are shared.
    During the Phase 1 of the S40 Mitsu also supplied engines for the non turbo versions.
    During the long gestation of the 850 a smaller car was deveploped along side the 850 to replace the dutch volvos the 340 and 440.
    This is the basis of the S40.
    benjamins,
    0% of the current S40 is shared with Ford or Mazda.
    The delta link in the 850 was originally planned due to the need for floor space in the 850 wagon.
    It was developed long before the multilink setup that the S40 and 960 used.
    Later S and V70 AWD's were fitted with the 960's multilink rear
    The S40 was never intended to be a first class car. It was developed on a budget to replace other "budget" Volvos. It has been the most popular and numerous model in Volvo's recent history.
    As for the new S40, doubtless it will be more closely entwined with its Ford and Mazda cousins, but I don't think anyone will have any trouble telling them apart.
  • jhorljhorl Posts: 89
    I've had my 2004 S40 LSE for about a week now and so far I love it. This is my first volvo and like I said I'm enjoying it, but a lot of the comments made here make the car sound like a piece of junk. I didnt drive any higher end Volvos because I couldnt afford them but this car feels very solid to me and fits my needs.

    Just my 2 cents.

    John
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    The Carisma interior looks even worse than the cabin of the Chevolet Cavalier, which is already pretty tacky. But the price is only around $9K USD for a loaded version. It'd make a nice competitior to the Kia Rio and the Hyundai Accent. I think we'd all prefer the Carisma to the Rio and the Accent, both cars that start at $9K.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "Later S and V70 AWD's were fitted with the 960's multilink rear"

    My aunt in Indiana bought countless number of Volvos since 1975. To me, all the 200 series rode neither comfortable nor uncomfortable, but at least the cars always remain stable, & therefore very acceptable. But my '86 760 Turbo got a uncomfortable tuning. No it's not too firm, just uncomfortable over bumps. Ditto my aunt's newest purchase - the S70 AWD, in fact, it's even worse just like the 850.

    I was wondering if it was the snow slush that made the Swedes over look the right setting of shock/spring frequency to ride comfortably over bumps.

    I haven't experience any of the S60/V70/S80 yet, so I don't know if Volvo has finally figured it out.

    So here comes the global C-platform S40/V50. Past American Ford Escort was basically a Mazda Protege, but Mazda's shock setting was all wrong & the car always bounce at least as high as the bump, while a standard Escort rode comfortably. So my testing of 4 different sets of shocks finally solved my Protege's ride comfort problem by replacing them w/ cheap Gabriels.

    See:
    ANT14 "Focus Owners: Future Models" May 6, 2003 11:41pm
    Read #2 & #3.

    So how comfortably will the Volvo S40/V50 ride compare to the Focus II or the Mazda3 remains to be seen. This will be interesting.
  • I think the 200 cars suffered from side to side roll and axle hop. The 760 with live axles tamed some of that. The 760 with the independent suspension was tuned a bit too soft and a bit "loose" but was definitely comfortable over much of the bumps. The 740 Turbo, even with the live axle, is a very stable ride, but with a bit of a shimmy or snap in the rear of nasty bumps.

    I recently drove a 850 with sports suspension. A 96 I think. I drove over very bumpy roads and it barely noticed the bumps. Only one bump felt a bit uncomfortable. A 960 I rode in was almost as comfortable as the new s80 and a very respectable riding car, if a bit soft in the front (the softness is revealed in dips and wavy roads, not so much over large bumps where it feels moderately firm).

    There's a very lumpy road near where I live and I rode in or drove several cars over it. A last generation Mercedes E, slow and fast, and it bobbed up and down slow noticeably and wasn't exceptional but was very strong, exceptionally strong, at faster speeds, an Audi 6, slow and fast and it was stable and firm, a Volvo AWD wagon slow and fast and slow it was stable and fast very comfortable and barely noticed the bumps but felt softish, a Passat that bobbed up and down slow and felt somewhat boomy but stable fast, a Chrysler something or the other that was way out of control, a Subaru Outback wagon that rode well but a bit rigidly, a Lexus ES 300 that did not notice the bumps, lumps or anything else but was so soft that it felt detached.

    Overall, I'd put the Audi A6 first, the 850 second, the Mercedes second for sure at high speeds as the Volvo had a suggestion of "skip" although it didn't skip. I guess it is a matter of preference. I've been in 850s that rode wonderfully and in some that were painful (although the firmest ones weren't the most uncomfortable). Audi's were a bit more consistent but some had bumps intruding noticeably causing some disturbance. I think 850s and s70s were poorly matched to low profile 17 inch tires, that Volvo has worked out better in the newer cars (though not as well as BMW).

    To me the best riding cars are French. Very stable with excellent compression and rebound. I think Volvo needs more compression and less abrupt rebounding, and with Bilsteins or Tokino (sp?) shocks the abrupt rebounding that they sometimes exhibit is quelled. The new Volvos have some of the abrupt rebounding, but most new Europeans have softened their low speed ride to include some abrupt rebouding (since most of them are firmer than Volvo it is less pronounced). I feel it in C and E class Mercedes, Audis, and even to some degree in BMWs (in whoop de doos and certain sudden changes in elevation type of roads). And I definitely feel it in S type Jags. The big Benzs and Bimmers are very graceful over big bumps and road elevation and they should be for the price that they are. However, they still have a degree of firm impact harshness over sharp bumps that's missing in Jags, Lexi, and French cars (which don't have the degree of ride control). What's best is personal I think. I like the French approach (though it allows a good amount of body roll in corners) and I think Volvo takes a quasi French approach.

    Creakid, is there anything you like about Volvos?
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    The seats, definitely, although not some of the headrests, including the '70's hard bony skeletal type & others that cannot be lowered enough to fit the contour of my neck. I'm 5'11" by the way. Coincidentally, the non-adjustable 940 had a perfect headrest for me.

    & the RWD models' amazing turning circle. While those tin-can Japanese cars tried to look big & tough by enlarging the turning circle such as the Accord starting in '90.

    Back in the '70's, my impression of Volvo was a very pleasant comfortable car w/ nicely tall chairs despite a little ride harshness.

    When I drove in the '80's, both the 200 series & my (parents') 760 Turbo got touchy brakes and heavy steering, w/ the 760 Turbo's steering also being numb that requires too much concentration to even cruise straight on the fwy.

    I understand what you meant about the "abrupt rebound" when the setting isn't very firm. That "abrupt rebound"(less tightness in the shock's rebound setting) is to play safe by allowing the springs to extend quickly, & thus bounce the car high, as soon as possible after the "dangerously" deep compression so to get ready for encountering the next bump that might come right afterwards w/o running out of spring travel. This is probably what I meant uncomfortable in the '86 760 Turbo, 850 & S70 AWD. But the joke is, for example, the rear tires of the new Acura TSX tend to end up air born at times.

    French cars are dreams especially when not slowing down on deep bumps & dips. I only test drove the Peugeot 604 extensively. A little on the Renault Feugo. For repair problems alone, I'd leave'em alone.

    I think the next Nissan Sentra will be based on the next Renault Mégane, so..., although lacking in ind rear suspension.

    By the way, it seem that Nissan & Mitsubishi tend to set the shock w/ a calm rebound, despite on a rather-short-travel spring. These cars can feel extremely comfy when the bumps are very shallow. The recent Nissan Quest is one.

    So no matter which C-plaform car I'm gonna get, Mazda/Volvo/Ford, I will install calm-rebound shocks if it doesn't come w/ them.

    "Lexus ES 300 that did not notice the bumps, lumps or anything else but was so soft that it felt detached."

    I guess you're talking about the new one. The old one w/ short travel was horribly unserene & felt cheap on deeper bumps, despite lack of harshness.
  • I think the 200 cars suffered from side to side roll and axle hop. The 760 with live axles tamed some of that. The 760 with the independent suspension was tuned a bit too soft and a bit "loose" but was definitely comfortable over much of the bumps. The 740 Turbo, even with the live axle, is a very stable ride, but with a bit of a shimmy or snap in the rear of nasty bumps.

    I recently drove a 850 with sports suspension. A 96 I think. I drove over very bumpy roads and it barely noticed the bumps. Only one bump felt a bit uncomfortable. A 960 I rode in was almost as comfortable as the new s80 and a very respectable riding car, if a bit soft in the front (the softness is revealed in dips and wavy roads, not so much over large bumps where it feels moderately firm).

    There's a very lumpy road near where I live and I rode in or drove several cars over it. A last generation Mercedes E, slow and fast, and it bobbed up and down slow noticeably and wasn't exceptional but was very strong, exceptionally strong, at faster speeds, an Audi 6, slow and fast and it was stable and firm, a Volvo AWD wagon slow and fast and slow it was stable and fast very comfortable and barely noticed the bumps but felt softish, a Passat that bobbed up and down slow and felt somewhat boomy but stable fast, a Chrysler something or the other that was way out of control, a Subaru Outback wagon that rode well but a bit rigidly, a Lexus ES 300 that did not notice the bumps, lumps or anything else but was so soft that it felt detached.

    Overall, I'd put the Audi A6 first, the 850 second, the Mercedes second for sure at high speeds as the Volvo had a suggestion of "skip" although it didn't skip. I guess it is a matter of preference. I've been in 850s that rode wonderfully and in some that were painful (although the firmest ones weren't the most uncomfortable). Audi's were a bit more consistent but some had bumps intruding noticeably causing some disturbance. I think 850s and s70s were poorly matched to low profile 17 inch tires, that Volvo has worked out better in the newer cars (though not as well as BMW).

    To me the best riding cars are French. Very stable with excellent compression and rebound. I think Volvo needs more compression and less abrupt rebounding, and with Bilsteins or Tokino (sp?) shocks the abrupt rebounding that they sometimes exhibit is quelled. The new Volvos have some of the abrupt rebounding, but most new Europeans have softened their low speed ride to include some abrupt rebouding (since most of them are firmer than Volvo it is less pronounced). I feel it in C and E class Mercedes, Audis, and even to some degree in BMWs (in whoop de doos and certain sudden changes in elevation type of roads). And I definitely feel it in S type Jags. The big Benzs and Bimmers are very graceful over big bumps and road elevation and they should be for the price that they are. However, they still have a degree of firm impact harshness over sharp bumps that's missing in Jags, Lexi, and French cars (which don't have the degree of ride control). What's best is personal I think. I like the French approach (though it allows a good amount of body roll in corners) and I think Volvo takes a quasi French approach.

    Creakid, is there anything you like about Volvos?
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    the Carisma's interior looks downright ugly. Volvo designers must have done a lot of redesigning the interior to make it Volvoish. And boy did they make a lot of money on the S40. They probably buy Carisma platforms on the cheap and then redesign it from there. A loaded Carisma starts at $9-$10K USD and a stripped down Volvo S40 starts somewhere around $26K.
  • There is a new article on the S40 on Autoweeks' website.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    http://autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_cod- - - e=carnews&loc_code=index&content_code=04498892

    "Under the new skin is Volvo’s version of the Ford/Mazda C1 platform that also underpins the new Mazda 3, Ford C-Max and next-generation Focus. That means independent rear suspension and the promise of ride and handling to far exceed the Mitsubishi-derived set-up of TODAY'S S40."

    volvomax - Sounds like today's S40's suspension & even steering set-up is from the Mitsubishi Carisma, or would you believe the multi-link from the 960/S70 AWD is also shared w/ the Japanese-designed Carisma?
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    Sure give a lot of info. I'd consider this over the BMW 1-Series any day. (1-Series starts with a 110 horsepower engine)
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    Just because some idiot jounalist says it doesn't make it so.

    A suspension is more than just some metal parts under a car.
    Consider the 960 and the S40.
    Both use multilink setups, yet the S40 rides much tighter than the 960 did.
    SUSPENSION TUNING is the key.
    The Carisma might use the same design of suspension, but differences in tuning and esp in chassis rigidity makes all the difference in the world.
    The S40 is a 15 yr old design creakid, of course its not up to the current standard.
    The new S40 should be and that is what I get out of that quote.
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    The S40 and Saab 9-2 will have a big war over who's the better car from Sweden. The S40's argument: "You're a rebadged Impreza, so you're not really from Sweden!"
    9-2's argument: "You're not even made in Sweden!"
    S40: "You aren't either!"
    9-2: "I have japenese engineering backing me up!"
    S40: "whatever. I'm the better car!"
    Argument goes on and on until Edmunds settles it and declares a winner.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    The public will ultimately settle the argument.
    In the S40's favor I believe.
  • fdannafdanna Posts: 263
    I've never owned a Volvo and the upcoming redesign of the S40 has really got me interested and I'm going to check it out when it arrives. Two things of concern to me: I'm curious about what kind of mileage a 5cyl manual would get (gas ain't cheap anymore)
    and 2) This was a big pet peeve of mine on the current S40 (though a small detail).... I hope they design the rear license plate holder to actually hold an American license plate well. The current one CLEARLY is for a European plate and, in my opinion, the overhang of the North American plate looks bad.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,478
    well, I average 24 mpg with my auto S70 T5. Figure I would probably get at least 25 with a stick. So given the S40t5 will be lighter and have a little less power, I would venture to say you could see 26-27 average mpg with a stick. That would put the EPA estimates around 23city to 29highway?? Just a guess.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "I'm curious about what kind of mileage a 5cyl manual would get"

    Well, either FWD 5-cyl w/ auto or AWD 5-cyl w/ stick or auto. So FWD 5-cyl w/ stick may not be available here. Besides, AWD models, which already use a little more fuel than the FWD, might even require the 5-cyl turbo. So to get a stick, you might end up using even more fuel due to both AWD & turbo. I hope the turbo part is not required for stick, as I hate turbo & kompressor. I'm sure this car is too light to fit the 5-cyl turbo in FWD form due to torque steer & wheel spin.

    Judging from the S60R's AWD characteristics, it doesn't take advantage of driving the rear wheels sufficiently. So unless you really need the snow traction, which a Californian like me don't, having S40 non-turbo AWD probably only slows the car down due to mechanical drag, & might not increase your handling fun, which the future AWD BMWs do, by incorporate power rather than braking in the ESP program to control under & over steer, & possibly retaining some power oversteer(but safe) drift when switched to the "semi-off" position!

    A recent AUTOCAR issue was disappointed w/ S60R's handling in this comparison:
    creakid1 "Acura TSX vs Audi A4" Aug 30, 2003 3:03am

    I didn't want to post this bad news here before, as most people on this board probably don't like to hear it. But then, what the heck, this might be related to the future of our baby - the new S40/V50.
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    I think that since the 9-2 has the price advantage, that it might be able to pull something off. Motor Trend said something like this:
    Price Range:
    Saab 9-2: $21K-$24K estimate. (Would fall perfectly with the 9-3, which starts at $25,995)
    Volvo S40: $24-$29K estimate. (Would overlap the S60 just a little bit at the top end, but that's fine.)
  • wsag26wsag26 Posts: 124
    Volvo's are in bad shape. I mean, I believe they are in a horrible position. WHY WOULD I PAY $800 A MONTH FOR A WEAK ENGINE. Doesn't make sense to me. Volvo's safety. GIVE ME A BREAK. Last time, they MEANT SAFETY, was back in the 50's and 60's. All of them are using dual side airbags. The only time I SAW a VOLVO that met more than the regular safety requirements was in the concepts.

    I know Volvo fans are sure on this page, that is why everyone keeps on getting mad at me, but I have a little words for you myself.

    1)BOO Volvo!
    2)BOO Ford!
    3)BOO to unreasonable vehicles, LIKE VOLVO's
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    The Haldex equipped XC90 2.5T AWD gets the same mileage as the FWD version.
    According to the EPA there is a statistical difference, but its too small to justify a different rating.
    In the S60's, there is only 1MPG difference between the S60 2.4 and the 2.5T.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    What are you smoking???

    I mean seriously, open your eyes man.
    Volvo is having a banner year, their pipeline is loaded w/ new products, and even the problem child S80 is getting good ratings now.

    As for safety, their record speaks for itself.
    Volvos always go above and beyond what the Federal Govt requires.

    If you have a concern please be specific.
    Otherwise go flame somewhere else.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "The Haldex equipped XC90 2.5T AWD gets the same mileage as the FWD version."

    Is that a constant AWD or the lazy FWD that switch to AWD only when the front driving wheels begin to spin?

    If it's the latter, then the fuel economy shouldn't be affected much.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,478
    I saw that blurb in MT as well. If the 9-2 is priced between $21k-$24k, then it will have nothing over the WRX that it is created from. It makes no sense. I just can't see that happening. The only reason to make the WRX a Saab is to offer more luxury. And this, of course, has to come at a price. I'm expecting the 9-2 to be priced very close to the S40. So a loaded up T5 should be very similar in price to a loaded up 9-2 Aero (or whatever they call the high hp model). Maybe a hair more for the 9-2 since it will be AWD.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    The AWD system is part time.

    Doubtless SAAB will stress the lux car experience, longer warranty and free maintenance.

    The S40 T5 AWD 6spd should sticker just under $30k
    The 9-2 should be in the same neighborhood.
    Hey, at least it will be built better than the current SAAB/Opels
  • Well, Creakid, of course found another negative comparison with a Volvo. XC70 owners may be pleased with the comparison test of the Volvo xc90 with the VW Tourag and Chrysler Pacifica in the latest Moter Trend. The oldest platform won in handling and ride quality and special mention was made to its improved steering. Maybe all Volvos have the improved steering, now.

    The s60R will be a great car in 2 or so years when Volvo really refines it. I think how it compares to German cars depends on your preferences, whether you like the taut German feel or the more relaxing and isolating Swedish feel.
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    Why would the 9-2 cost just a little more than the WRX? Why not upgrade to the 9-2 then? But, you have a $25,995 price cap to the base price of the midline model (probably ARC) because the 9-3 Linear starts there. Volvo has no such problem because the base S60 2.4 starts at $29K. So, Saab has one of two things they need to do: A) keep the 9-2 at the Motor Trend projected price or B) Raise the price of the 9-3 Linear to $27,595 to make room for the 9-2 Arc. My pricing estimates: (based on MT)
    9-2 Linear: $23,995
    9-2 Arc: $25,995
    9-2 Aero/Vector: $27,995
    9-3 Linear: $27,595
    Volvo S40 Base: $25,995
    Volvo S40 2.5T: $27,995
    Volvo S40 T5: $29,500
    Volvo S60 2.4: $29,750
    That would work just fine for both automakers. Now, about the problem with Mercedes:
    A-Class is coming, but that would overlap with the C230 Kompressor Sport Sedan.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,478
    looks fine, but that's not what MT estimated. They commented on the WRX based 9-2 and included that in their $21k-$24K number.

    The numbers you give are a little more realistic, I think, because you hit the Impreza TS based model at about $5K more than the Subaru version. I do think its a bit high, though, considering that $27K is only a couple grand higher than a WRX. So I would say the base Saab 9-2 could very will dip below $22K to keep it $2-$3K higher than a base TS. The ARc will be based on the RS, so that should start at roughly $1500 more. And then the jump up to the $27K range for the WRX-based version. So it looks more like MT's numbers only incorporated the first 2 models and not the WRX model 9-2.

    Could be higher all around, we'll see.

    If folks do cross-shop the base s40 with the base 9-2 and the 9-2 does come in around that $22K number, it will look like a bargain if its is as well appointed as a Saab should be AND since it comes with AWD. Tough competition for Volvo in that case.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • Has a nice feature where you can compare their models to "comparably equipped" competitors ... Like the S40 ... I think I am all set to swap my leased 2000 S40 next year on the sweeeeeet 2005 model ... Can't wait to test drive the more powerful engines ... You can keep the manual transmission though - in Atlanta traffic it is too much wear and tear on my calf muscles! LOL
This discussion has been closed.