Howdy, Stranger!

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





New S40/V50

145791036

Comments

  • Volvomax,

    The turning circle of the 850 is 33 feet. Volvos were always wonderful at turning around in a small amount of space for their size and making tight turns, they've gone backwards in this regard.

    Can't Volvo put in some rear steering or something to improve the turning circle to about 35 feet or so on the s60? I think on the new s80 and v70, s60 replacements reducing the turning circle must be a priority. Now it's a chore to park these cars in tight parking lots.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    The 850 circle was 35 ft w/ the 15" wheels.
    The 960 was 31 ft. Because it was RWD

    The S60 is wider than the 850, and has much wider tires with no corresponding increase in the wheel well size.
    4 wheel steering adds weight and complexity to the car, so I doubt that Volvo is seriously considering it.
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    I do 90% of my driving in town, so I want something mildly sporty but still not punishing. I wonder how Volvo is doing in this regard.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,618
    have had the opportunity to drive an '02 m3 several times, due to a very generous neighbor.
    imho, the harsh ride of the m3 doesn't exist.
    it is definitly 'firm', but nothing out of the ordinary compared to my '02 explorer or '91 mustang gt. too many people take what c&d says as gospel.
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    my commuter car is a Honda Odyssey...... (but my next car won't replace the Odyssey- it'll replace the 99' Civic I have as my wife's car...)
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "FWD cars, like the Acura TSX and the S60 can't turn like a RWD Mercedes.
    You can't turn the front wheels 90 degrees, the front axles won't allow it."

    W/ RWD, turning the front wheel 90 degrees won't even allow the rear wheels to push the car forward. Only FWD can roll the front wheels side way at 90 degrees.

    It's all conspiracy from car companies to make the small cars' turning circle about as large as the bigger cars, so when people stepping up to the next higher model won't get upset when they have to sacrifice the convenience & pay more $.

    Nissan didn't want to disappoint the people used to the old RWD Datsun 210's convenient tiny turning circle. So the FWD replacement - the Sentra - kept the tiny turning circle for several years!

    The V6 Camry had 36.7 ft curb-to-curb turning circle. The RWD V8 '95-98 Lexus LS400 has only 34.8 ft ctc! When measured wall to wall, that LS400 is even smaller than the 4-cyl Camry, as the FWD Camry has a longer front overhang.

    "Yes, but the Accords turning circle is 36.1 feet and the Camry's is 34.8 (with the 4 cyl and auto according to Edmunds). The Camry's is better than my rwd C240 and it is considerably bigger."

    The C-class has a very short front overhang corner so the wtw turning circle should beat any Camry.

    Honda is actually a very pretentious company. They tried to earn business from people who are against Japanese cars by claiming that the company headquarter is in America & called themselves "American Honda". Next, they kept the required "CHECK ENGINE" dash warning light from coming on so the customer satisfaction rate went up, & ended up w/ a big fine from the U.S. government. Since we used to associate Honda w/ the tiny Civic CVCC hatchbacks, Honda purposely kept all the Accord's exterior dimensions AND turning circle bigger than Camry's to sound like a big car, although, in fact, the Accord had rather poor stretch out leg room up to '97. Wasn't that "36.1" vs Camry's "34.8" sound peculiar? As if "36" is whole lot bigger than "34". Come on, only in American do we use "feet", as rest of the world is all metric.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "imho, the harsh ride of the m3 doesn't exist.
    it is definitly 'firm', but nothing out of the ordinary compared to my '02 explorer or '91 mustang gt. too many people take what c&d says as gospel."

    Duh, mentioning the buckboard-riding crude vehicles is out of the question. There are always the Suzuki Samurai & the Jeep Wrangler WW2 military vehicle.

    The BMW 3-series sport suspension's ride comfort is still a dream compare to other sports cars, per C&D, etc. But I'm only willing to tolerate the ride of the non-sport longer-travel suspension found in the base 3-series sedan(not including the recent 330i).
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    Boy, wasn't I so right. The Dec CAR just complained about the new S40 T5's turbo torque steer & understeer plough, excessive traction control cut in, & somewhat fidgety ride. Saying that all these are the typical problems w/ all the high-power FWD Swedish cars.

    Also, when the road surface gets ragged, the torque-steer tugging becomes more obvious.

    They also warned you that you better back off the throttle when the front tugs/understeers, or else. Once the traction control kicks in, it won't let go for a long time!

    No, the light pressure turbo doesn't have enough delay to create lag, just soft throttle response. Low end is so rich that the 6-sp isn't even needed. The R model will be the one w/ the hardcore turbo setting.

    The non-turbo model may be much weaker at lower rpm, but is enjoyable to rev, plus w/o any of the vices of the turbo model mentioned above so handles more fluently. The higher-profile tires on smaller diameter wheels are just as wide as the turbo model at 205/55, so the road contact/grip is still there. Along w/ the softer suspension, the ride is better, too. For sure they like the non-turbo more than the FWD T5!
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,203
    so one review makes it right?
    well, then how about this one:
    http://www.swedespeed.com/features/road_tests/s40_t5_2004/index.s- html

    They seem to love it. Best handling Volvo ever (aside from the R) and handles like a RWD, according to that article.

    And considering the S40 T5 will have about the same rate of acceleration as my current T5 and I have none of the issues to the degree of severity that CAR supposedly states, I find their review less credulous. But, only time will tell. We'll find out the truth for ourselves.

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

  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "Toss it into a corner, lift off the throttle and the back slides into line."

    Not bad, now the new S40 gives you the choice to do some rear slide.
  • Does anyone know when then new S40 will be available for configuration on the Volvo website? Thanks.
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    probably when the S40 goes on sale in Feb 2004.

    and is the S40 roomier or less roomy than my 99' Civic????
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    You got to be kidding. A Civic sedan? Just check out the back seat room of the S60. The new S40 is suppose to be even bigger.

    Remember it's the stretch-out leg room that counts, not the knee room. That's also why I found the Civic sedan roomier than the pre-'98 Accords.
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    that the S40 was smaller rear seat wise.
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    just marginally larger.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    Volvo should change the name of this superb new vehicle from the old hopeless S40, but there's no other choice staring in the even numbers. They can't call it S20 sedan! That almost sound like a 2-wheel motor bike. From all these new articles, you can tell that, w/o adopting Focus II's steering/suspension, the new S40 can't achieve this level of competence & fun in steering/handling, while the ride is still good.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    The T5 has the same springs as the non-turbo. Only the dampers & sway bars are stronger. They said the non-turbo has a less-stiff ride, lighter steering & drifts more easily, but still fun like no other Volvo. At very high speed, the T5's steering is a tad sensitive. Sounds sort of like how C&D complained about the American non-SVT Focus's light power steering that became too darty when upgrading from 15" to 16" low-profile tire.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "Curves and twisties on tracks and steering feedback at the limit are NOT as important as how a car is to LIVE with day in and day out."

    Driving enthusiasts like it. Unskilled drivers need it EVEN more! Some steerings seem firm, but feels totally washed out at the limit, such as the present Jetta. The steering of the '86 760 Turbo I used to own is simply just heavy w/ no feeling, & worse, can't even track straight on the fwy w/o lots of concentration!

    NOT just at the limit, the steering should be able to inform the driver if the tire still has adhesion EVEN WHEN going in a relative straight line, as an Focus engineer pointed out. An example is the Acura TSX's steering. It always feels like there's no tire adhesion, despite feeling firm due to strong self-centering action. Sure, the car goes fast around corners & even able to absorb bumps the same time. But an average driver who drove it on a high-speed fwy curve got scared & complained that his Mercedes C220 didn't have this problem.
  • With this new one coming out, should I even consider getting a 2004 S40? I need a new car by the beginning of January, and the 2005 won't be out yet. There are some great deals out there for the 2004s, given the redesign. But after reading some of the reviews, I'm not sure the 2004 S40 will even be worth my while.

    Bottom line: Is the 2004 S40 a good car or not? Other options I'm considering are the new 2004 Mitsu Galant and possibly a Subaru Impreza, which a friend just told me was a great car; the Subaru is pretty ugly IMO, so I don't know if I can get past that!

    Thanks!
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/brunoluong/vwp?.dir=/Album+02&am- p;am- p;am- p;am- p;am- p;am- p;.dnm=frankfurt_sedan_5.jpg&.src=ph&.view=t&.hires=t

    Tell me if this car reliable enough to replace the Impreza is ugly at all. In fact, it's most likely more cool than the Sube in everyway. It's made-in-Japan & will be available before January. Even the most expensive model w/ navigation & HID xenon headlights is only $23k, which is still $1k cheaper than a stripped 5-cyl new S40. Both this car & the new S40 will be the only cars sold in America sharing this same C-1 platform. The present S40 shares the Euro-market Mitsubishi Carisma's platform.

    http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/carisma/
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,203
    creak, you're looking at the msrp of the S40. It can be had for FAR below that, as wantapassat just pointed out.

    However, that being said, I would probably pick the mazda3 over it. Only downside for both cars is that the S40 has HORRIBLE resale and so do Mazdas, typically (although i am hoping that changes with cars like the rx8 and mazda3). Oh, and Mitsu also has the resale of used concrete. out of all your choices, the Subaru probably has the strongest resale (unless the mazda proves otherwise).

    Anyway, to answer your original question, I would not get the current S40. Just not worth it. If I were in your shoes and needed something, I'd probably get a beater for $2K or less and wait until the new S40 comes out so I at least can compare it with the Mazda3 and Impreza. when the time comes, if you took care of the beater and got a decent deal to begin with, you should be able to sell it for the same money you bought it for.

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

  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "creak, you're looking at the msrp of the S40. It can be had for FAR below that, as wantapassat just pointed out."

    Are you saying the stripped 5-cyl new S40 w/ std stability control will give lots of discounts off the base price of predicted $24K?.

    "Only downside for both cars is that the S40 has HORRIBLE resale and so do Mazdas..."

    Just keep the Mazda & don't sell it. That way it'll save you $, too. ;-) At least the typical made-in-Japan Mazda will last forever so you won't have to worry about getting rid of it due to the repair issues.

    The non-STi version of the Impreza WRX is suppose to have a reasonably supple ride, at least more compliant than the BMW 3-series 3-dr hatch, which has the std lowered sport suspension.

    Per CR, the RX-8 & Focus SVT also ride amazingly comfortable for a sports car. So w/ this combined technology, the Mazda3 might beat the Impreza in the ride/handling compromise. & so does the new S40/V50.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,203
    i see the disconnect. You referred to the price of the "new S40" while wantapassport was referring to the existing S40. So i got a little confused. I meant that the existing S40 he was inquiring about could be had for way less than $24K.

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

  • Thanks for your help. I guess I should forget the current Volvo S40 (if I could wait for the new one, I would ... oh well).

    Funny you should mention Mazda. After my post, I started researching the Mazda 6. Apparently there's a major rust issue with that car right now. So I crossed it off my list. But if the Mazda 3 doesn't have that problem, I suppose I should consider it.

    BTW, I plan to lease. I need a low down payment (no more than $1,000) and low monthly payments (preferably lower than $250/mo.) on whatever I get, and it seems leasing may be the only way to accomplish that. Plus, I haven't had the best of luck with keeping cars. My first car was a 1985 Honda Accord that I had for 7 years but died at 72k miles. Then I had a Honda Del Sol for 7 years that died ay 59k. In both cases, no mechanic could figure out what was wrong. So then I decided to lease the 200 Mitsu Galant; I like the idea of putting less money into the car (I pay $215/mo.) and giving it back after 4 years so that I don't have to deal with all the problems!
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    have you tried the 9-2 yet? Coming in December, built by Subaru, some Saab features, and a decent price range of $22K-$27K.
  • Really? The Saab 9-2s are coming out so soon? I didn't realize that. Thanks for the tip. Though I am always hesitant to buy a new car in its first year. Thoughts?
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    It is really a rebadged Subaru with some fancy Saab trim......
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    they expect a December/January launch date, though don't quote me on that.
  • Hmm. I thought it was due in spring 2004. No real pictures seem to be out yet, at least that I can find, so it seems odd that it will be in showrooms in the next two months. But I hope you're right -- I'd love to check it out!
145791036
This discussion has been closed.