New S40/V50

creakid1 · August 2003

"On another note, its rather impressive how much interior volume there is on the M6 compared to the physically longer 5-series. But if you've been in the M6, I think you'd find a different story. My Volvo (s70) seems massive in comparison. Go figure."

RWD wastes room, but then it's possible some of these FWD-based AWD cars can still provide lots of room.

The S70/850 got lots of stretched-out leg/toe room, but the S60/V70 is a different story. So the Mazda6 does have much bigger back seating room than the S60/V70.

"My understanding is that if the S40 grows in size but not in price, we'll have no buyers signing on for S60s and V70s. Especially if Volvo decides to stick AWD on S40s and V40s and XC50s."

The new S40/V50 is a mid-size, since its shorter-wheelbase version - the Mazda3 - is already a mid-size.

So the existence of the S60/V70 might be somewhat pointless & Volvo might have to make the cheaper S40/V50 w/ less quietness to keep the S60/V70 alive. Or only the larger versions of the S60/V70 platform cars - the S80(& the future V90?) & the Ford Five-hundred - will continue?

As far as the handling goes, the S60 might have a hard time keeping up w/ the new Focus-dynamic S40, so I find it funny when someone thought the new S40 is more ES300 rather than IS300 than the S60. Not just the suspension is a Focus design, even its steering rack is identical to Focus II's.

creakid1 · August 2003

http://free.inkfrog.com/pix/infinitig35testing/

volvomax · August 2003

Yup, thats the car.
The base S60 will be dropped from the lineup, the 2.5T and R will remain.
The S60 will be sufficently different from the S40 to justify its continued production, but Volvo's emphasis will be on the S40.

qbrozen · August 2003

is it just me or does that profile shot make it look very much Audi?

(again, posted on another board here on edmunds)
article with pics

i do like what i see so far, though.

creakid1 · August 2003

http://autotelegraaf.nl/vanonzeredactie/?id=12194

qbrozen · August 2003

I see S40 T5 in that article. But it would be a T4, would it not?

volvomax · August 2003

No it would be a T5.

The T4 was a 200hp turbo 4 cyl.

The capital T designation with Volvo means the mosr powerful regular production engine available to the class(aside from the R types). The number refers to the number of cylinders.
In the current S40 the T4 was the most powerful.
In the new S40 the 5 cyl 220 hp turbo 5 will be the most powerful unless and until an R version is built.

qbrozen · August 2003

ok. i didn't even think that it referred to the cylinders. I just assumed T6 for the largest, T5 for the mid, so T4 for the small.

jchan2 · August 2003

look nice. I may even consider this car instead of the current base S60- which I'm looking at.

wsag26 · August 2003

Hope the next gen S40's interior doesn't look like the pics posted on the previous page. The interior will be too confusing. Of course, it has a great design. I agree and everything, but while I'm crusing down the road, I don't want to mix up all my buttons. There all together. They should be spaced out and more visual. That is too confusing.

creakid1 · August 2003

"...I don't want to mix up all my buttons."

Exactly! Keeping the ventilation & the stereo buttons together also makes the driver, especially unfamiliar one, taking eyes off the road too long to figure out, let alone the button size - a dangerous design! Shame on Volvo in active safety(accident avoidance)!

My top of-the-line '86 Volvo - the 760 Turbo - had gotten us into troubles. As if Volvo wants to prove to the world that it's safer to crash than other cars so they made the car prone to crash!

The low stereo location even got indicator lights below the dial so I had to move my head down to peak at them, & I almost had a head on in a residential street, which does not have a center divider.

The V6 model was so unreliable we had to get the more expensive 4-cyl turbo. & the turbo lag made my lane change unsafe when I got stuck in the traffic. Even though I floored all the way, the car moved from stationary crawling for a second or two before the boost got built while I moved out of my lane, so the car coming from behind had to brake & hunk at me. What a slow car for such sticker price.

Then there's the rear-wheel-drive design w/o the limited-slip differential. I was only cruising over 60 mph on a raining day. As one of the rear driving wheels hydroplaned, it kept spinning & the car's rear wants to twitch around several times! It was always heart-in-the-mouth moments, as I could only steer the front wheels, not rear.

Once I drove over a roll of rug over the fwy, the primitive rear-axle non-independent suspension comes w/ a non-enclosed spinning drive shaft that caught the thread from the rug & broke the brake line. Luckily I heard some noise & pulled over to the shoulder, & we had to wait a while for the tow truck.

Finally, the right out-side mirror lacks convex feature to cover the blind spot. So I taped a convex one over it. It eventually fell out so my teenager sister who just learned to drive never developed the skill checking for the right-side blind spot w/ the outside mirror. So she eventually crashed the car while changing lane to the right as she had to look over the shoulder & the car in front braked & got rear ended. So the other car, full of passengers, sued us, & our insurance went up. Eventhough I knew such minor accident did not cause any REAL bodily injury.

By the '90's, I discovered that the new Volvo 850 had all of the above mistakes amended. It was about time. What took Volvo so long to figure these things out? Was it the Swedish freezing climate that slowed everything down?

super_swede · August 2003

There are a pressreleas about the new S40/V50 on Volvos swedish sight (didnt find it in the us sight) http://www.volvocars.se/

There are also some nice picks in a swedish magazine http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/bil/story/0,2789,351570,00.html

Enjoy

sharkzbyte · August 2003

just spotted a blue metallic 2004 S40. What a beautiful car!! If they can get the handling, and power right, I would definetly get it. At first glance I thought it was the S60 R model, damn, its very nice. I need to test drive it!

jchan2 · August 2003

the reason Volvo moved to FWD is for traction reasons. Also, those radio/Climate buttons look like they could take someone's eyes off the road wayyy too long. Long enough to crash. But then again, if you do die inside any Volvo, someone mentioned that you get $250K to your estate. maybe the number is a little less now, but at least they offer to pay up if you get killed in their product. Where did they spot the blue 04' S40 and how dark was the blue?

creakid1 · August 2003

I was almost murdered by my '86 760 Turbo. You see, this Belgian built car was so sloppily made that they forgot to hook 1 of the 4 front sway-bar mounts. No, it didn't fall out the car. As the undercoating marking showed that the mount was never installed the first place. So on one damp day, I discovered my car has an oversteer tendency when I was speeding on a long downhill right turn. So I corrected the steering to keep the whole cornering process neutral, & fortunately I picked the right lane to start so the car ONLY slipped to the left lane almost hitting the concrete divider at the end of the turn. I then got so scared that I called ipd & bought a set of their giant sway bars only to learn during the installation that it was all due to a partially mounted front sway bar.

Since then, my family never bought another Volvo. Besides, its ride, even w/ the top-of-the-line self-leveling rear suspension, is not just short on comfort, it is down right punishing despite longish suspension travel.

The 850/S70's ride comfort was also horribly bad, maybe even worse. I can't believe how badly it occilated vertically on the bumpy concrete section of the I-10 in Covina California during the '90's. Perhaps the Focus suspension in the new S40/V50 will do wonder to improve a Volvo.

wsag26 · August 2003

Just a little interesting fact:
Why haven't I heard about a Volvo ever recalled?

Anyway, I went offtopic just for a little bit. Sorry bout that. Like many times before, Volvo has done a bad job again. Like many of there interiors, and lame features, they've turned themselves from a luxury safety brand into a plain brand.

They charge too much for there weak vehicles. I know Volvo's aren't made for performance, but at least sneak a 250 horsepower V-6 engine on the S40... I don't know about you, but Volvo is not in good shape right now

creakid1 · August 2003

"...Volvo is not in good shape right now"

Maybe they will be, at least dynamic wise. The Mitsubishi Carisma-derived old S40/V40 is being replaced by the new S40/V50 riding on Focus II's suspension/steering. That alone will make the driving experience a revelation.

How about the other platform used on rest of the Volvo lines all the way from the 60 to 90 series? Even the upcoming big Ford Five Hundred will adopt it. But I heard that a future Ford Mondeo platform will be shared w/ Volvo. Sounds like another big "Focus" is taking over the Volvo design. While the Mazda6 plaform is taking over any Ford/Mercury/Lincoln smaller than the Ford Five Hundred except the Mondeo, & that includes the Jaguar S-type-based Lincoln LS. Interesting, sounds like none of the Japanese-designed Mazda6 platform is gonna penetrate into the Volvo line up.

qbrozen · August 2003

lemme share a little something from the September Motor Trend (I won't post the whole list, just a few numbers I found interesting):

Sales Success for Luxury Brands with SUVs
(the first number is may 2003 sales, then the percentage that was SUVs, the third is the sales change from may 2002 to may 2003)
Acura - 16,495 - 31% - 2%
Cadillac - 16,171 - 30% - 7%
Infiniti - 11,148 - 27% - 46%
Lincoln - 15,478 - 44% - 17%
Audi - 7,857 - 0% - 2%
Volvo - 13,120 - 29% - 64%

Hell, if volvo is not in good shape, then we'd better pull the sheet over Audi and Infiniti and get prepared to say goodbye to Caddy, Acura, and Lincoln!!

Kirstie_H · August 2003

Different cars appeal in different areas of the country (and the world, for that matter). While you may not see a load of Volvos in the South, drive 1,000 miles to the north and the automotive landscape changes as quickly as the climate.

robr2 · August 2003

...is right. You can't turn around in New England without seeing a Volvo, Saab, or Subaru. Automobile Magazine in the September new car preview issue even said something like the new S/V40 sounds great but will it be Swedish enough to keep them happy in New England.

rollie · August 2003

They're not as popular as BMWs (nothing is except maybe Hondas) but you see MANY Volvos all over.

Volvo is doing EXTREMELY well right now. Their sales are up 25% this year already and when they replace the anemic 40 series with this new one I don't see how they won't be up another 20% or more next year (especially once they ramp up more capacity for XC90s and bring over more Rs). Even the S80 (the flagship Volvo seems to have forgotten) is up in sales of late. The XC90, S60R, and V70R still have waiting lists months long. WSAG26, I'm not sure what you were thinking but I don't think you can accurately claim Volvo is doing bad at this point. I think they're doing quite well and their future looks even brighter (I can't wait until the new Volvo/Getrag/Dana operation starts dropping integrated tranny and AWD combinations on us - can you say AWD SMG?) The new inline engine family coming out soon sounds VERY promising and the new Yamaha designed V8 is sorely needed in the XC90 and S80 (not to mention future 'R' variants.)

Volvo is growing faster than BMW, Mercedes, or Audi at this point (I think the only car company growing faster is Acura if memory serves me right). How can you say Volvo is not in good shape?

Thanks.

-rollie
rdollie@att.net

jchan2 · August 2003

You at least have that quarter million Volvo will hand out if you die in a Volvo. Now that's commitment to your products. Only Acura has grown faster than Volvo in recent years, but Lexus grew faster in the 90's.

benjamins · August 2003

Creakid

Give it a rest. you're just bashing.And your praise for the Focus is over the top. I don't know what was wrong with your 86 Volvo but that was a while ago. My 90 Volvo 760 doesn't feel dangerous, doesn't have excessive turbo lag, and rides comfortably. Volvo s60s and s80s, if anything, are known for their very comfortable and supple rides at the expense to some degree to handling. And, I've been in a Focus and while it is a very good car, the old s40 rides better, and feels like a better car (if older platform).

One of the reasons why Ford bought Volvo is that they were so impressed with the s80 platform and wanted to build the next Taurus on a deconted version of it. Volvo used the Mitsubishi platform for the old s40 and share some with the Focus, and yes, the Focus has a very good chassis. Volvo will tune it, my guess is soften it somewhat, and it'll probably feel a lot like existing Volvos in ride and handling.

The new s40, I'm happy to see, uses much of the same materials of its higher priced fleetmates. I really like the styling of the outgoing one better, more elegant and more feminine, but the new s40 fits the family look well and the interior is much improved from what I can see so far.

Volvo has a solid line. s60 is well received, v70 and xc70 are very popular, xc90 is very well received, only the s80 is suffering due to its early reliability problems. Hopefully the revised 4C s80 will help the s80 sell better. Volvo is fine.

creakid1 · August 2003

How well does Volvo car sales grow w/o counting the SUV? People want SUV blindly these days, so a lot of them worrying about roll-over picked the Volvo. Besides, high sales number or waiting list does not necessarily equate to good cars.

Volvo cars need to be rescued. Check out the $41k S60 AWD in Aug 03 Car&Driver, p.73:

"...the remote steering..."(Aaron Bobinson)

"For the same dough, I'd pop for the four-wheel-drive BMW 330xi. True, it's slower than the S60R, but it has much better steering feel and handling, it's more fun to drive, and the gearbox feels slicker than the Volvo's. I like road feel and communication in a sporty car, and that's what the Volvo lacks."(Larry Webster)

"Exploiting that grip would be more fun if the steering didn't feel so artificial. The quick-ratio (2.5 turns lock-to-lock) rack responds to input linearly, but communication from the road is lacking, resulting in a numb, isolating feel."(Ron Kiino)

How can a car go so fast & corners so hard fail to provide a communicative feedback to the driver? What do you expect an uninformed driver to do in such extreme conditions? Again, that can be considered as poor active safety. Besides, it's no fun!

Don't get me wrong. There are many other sport sedans out there w/ the similar problem. I'm simply searching for an entertaining sedan.

So, even the sportiest Volvo design can only provide so much. It's no wonder the other Euro designs from the future Focus/Mondeo have to replace future Volvo's suspension & steering.

No wonder now Volvo is claiming its new C30/S40/V50 as a BMW 3-series fighter.

jchan2 · August 2003

Does anyone know why the volvo S40 was created in the first place, since the excellent S60 costs only about four thousand dollars more than the S40 currently bases at? I'm very interested in seeing what the next Volvo S40 will feel like once it hits showrooms nationwide and what will Ford do to the Focus ZTS if people are going to splurge a little more and buy the Volvo S40?

creakid1 · August 2003

The compact S40(& its old 300 series) was created because the rest of the Volvos used to be roomy cars prior to the S60/V70.

I think the new S40 sedan's exterior is quite beautiful, but the only family member of mine whose getting one - my aunt in Indiana - is probably gonna get the V50 instead 'cause she needs a wagon.

I still don't know how the new Focus II sedan looks like. Besides, our low-quality domestic Focus I will not be redesigned as early as the foreign Focus.

creakid1 · August 2003

"I've been in a Focus and while it is a very good car, the old s40 rides better, and feels like a better car (if older platform)."

It's possible. I also find the standard non-sport suspension in the BMW 3-series sedan(from '92 til now) much more comfortable than any Focus. Anyway, the new S40/V50 is based on the improved Focus II, not I. Also, we're talking about the ride/handling compromise, not just the ride alone.

rollie · August 2003

Have you spent a lot of time in 3 series BMWs? I have and while the steering is very precise and crisp the feedback is NON EXISTENT. I could use the exact same description for the S60R - very precise and crisp with no feedback. Why you cite a loaded up S60 AWD isn't particularly relevant. Who is going to spend $41k on a S60 AWD when the S60R AWD can be ordered for under $37k with leather and bi-xenons? Heck you can spend another $1k and add a 355 hp chip and you have M3 acceleration with grip superior to the M3 and S4. I don't see your point - how are Volvo's cars bad? I see them as performance bargains (and most of them except the XC90 and Rs can be had for factory invoice price + MSRP for options through the Euro delivery program making them even bigger bargains.)

Also, why are you discounting Volvo's growth due to their SUV? They're just about the last ones to the party with a SUV so why don't you discount the sales of SUVs for other brands as well?

Please keep your perspective. While many of us here on forums are self-described 'enthusiasts' the average buyer of Volvos, BMWs, Lexus, etc. is not. I suspect the percentage of SUV drivers who go off road is HIGHER than the percentage of sport sedan drivers who hit an autocross course. If Volvo wants to build a BMW fighter let them (and don't forget they hired away a couple of BMW's suspension engineers a few years back.) Combined with their new German ZF steering hardware, German engine management systems, current German co-designed engines (Porsche), etc. I just don't see as much of a difference between these cars in actual driving as you do I think (heck even the interior panels are German sourced in current Volvos.)

Thanks.

-rollie
rdollie@att.net

benjamins · August 2003

Creakid,

You've found negative quotes on Volvo, there are positive one's as well. For a long time BMW kept winning comparitive tests in most car mags but now Audi and others are beating them out. I think car mags find their darling cars and heap praise all over them while thinking not of the type of cars each manufacturer is trying to make for their target customers.

Here's a quote about the s80 in comparison to BMW's 530 d and Jaguars S car in Autocar, 3 October 2001

"Neither Jaguar or BMW could compete with the Volvo's peerless stability and immunity to motorway cross-winds or camber changes...Great though the ride is in the BMW it's a compromise born of a desire to ensure the car stays crisp through ends. And that means the Volvo's truly cosseting ride wins the day; it stays composed, has zero float or wallow, and smothers the worst surfaces with the least drama" In conclusion: "the volvo s80T6 is the marginal winner here. It's the most stable, has the best ride and seats and comes with a staggering range of options."

Car magazine, no fans of Volvo, wrote of the s60 in comparison to the Saab 3, Mazda 6, Audi A4, BMW 3, and Jaguar X type picked the Volvo 2nd overall in December 2002 giant test. Some quotes: "it feels big, solid, and although not explicitly sporty, the soft chassis allows for smoother and more relaxing progress than in the Saab. Excellent damping also makes for uncannily good body control on rough roads if you crank up the pace, and there's even some convincing pretence at feedback through the thick-rimmed steering wheel...for easy, rapid progress it's a convincing performance." Also, "Congratulations, therefore, to Volvo, here in second place... with a slightly more interesting cabin and firmer brakes, the Volvo would be pretty near perfect."

Even in the Car and Driver report on the s60 there was one writer who preferred the Volvo in counterpoint saying something like it was less extreme and offered almost as much dynamic precision as a 3 series M BMW.

I like Volvo for Volvo qualities. Solid construction, commitment to passive safety, I have no problem with their active safety whatsoever, very comfortable seats, a Swedish type cabin that I find more relaxing than German cars, all-day Grand touring like cruising with *very* comfortable ride quality characteristics in their newest cars. I respect German cars but they just don't do it for me, somethings hard and a bit cold about them. I don't need the all-out performance of a BMW and I think Volvo makes cars for a specific type of customer that doesn't need the hard edge precision found in many German cars.

creakid1 · August 2003

"Have you spent a lot of time in 3 series BMWs? I have and while the steering is very precise and crisp the feedback is NON EXISTENT."

This is an interesting quote. Was it the early 2001 3-series? I drove that one once, too, & totally agree. BMW admitted they made that mistake & recalled the owners to have their car modified back to the normal 3-series set up free of charge. BMW even slightly further improved the steering starting the 2nd half of 2001.

Anyway, the present E46 3-series only has a decent steering feedback compare to the previous E36 3-series's excellent one.

"Heck you can spend another $1k and add a 355 hp chip and you have M3 acceleration with grip superior to the M3 and S4. I don't see your point - how are Volvo's cars bad? I see them as performance bargains"

I grew up around up & down hill hairpin roads. Turbo or Kompressor really delays the mid-corner acceleration too much & making metering the power precisely at the exact time impossible, & that ruins the fun. So BMW wouldn't dare to force feed their gas engines.

That's no big deal, as the light-weight S40/V50 w/ non-turbo 5-cyl should be plenty powerful, more so than any of its twin FocusII/Mazda3 w/o turbo.

However, at high altitude w/ thin air, it's fun to see the turbo/kompressor cars kept shooting up hill while all the other cars ran out of breath. ;-)

"Also, why are you discounting Volvo's growth due to their SUV?"

I'm just wondering if that's the case. We're no average drivers, so I don't really care about sales number 'cause that's mainly due to what the average drivers bought. Besides, I never criticized Volvo's sales number.

& I hate those high-center-of-gravity SUVs that are never used off road, by the way.

creakid1 · August 2003

"the volvo s80T6 is the marginal winner here. It's the most stable, has the best ride and seats and comes with a staggering range of options."

I don't know if the 530d has rack-&-pinion steering but...

May 2003 C&D -

pp56-58(BMW M5)"...the recirculating-ball steering had a bit too much power assist for optimal feel." "Lows: Numb steering..."

Interesting, when BMW's not trying hard enough... They did promise bringing back the more driver-oriented 1-series & the next E90 3-series, both from the same platform.

& the Volvo S80 is still not as crisp or fun as the possibly-so-so 5-series? It's the steering/handling/ride compromise that really counts. Otherwise, the Lexus LS wins pretty well, too, if only counting the ride comfort alone.

While in the very same issue of C&D:

p84(Focus SVT) "The thick steering wheel is tight, telegraphic link with the front wheels. Pick the pebble you want to fling from the white line, and the Focus will point you there."

April '03 Automobile also pointed out that the Focus SVT is "almost M3-like" in important/expensive areas and absorbs road bumps "like a 3-series", although I believe that's only the comfort level of the 3-series w/ the less-comfortable sport-suspension, which is lowered w/ less travel.

I read that CAR comparison, too. In fact, I have that issue right in front of me. It's amazing how the BMW beats the Mazda in ride comfort/refinement w/ no less competence in handling. Please take a note. The less-comfy sport suspension became std across the board in all Euro-spec 2WD 3-series since 2002, while the comfier non-sport suspension is still std in the N.A. 325i & is available as Comfort package option at least in Britain, & that S60 only rode slightly comfier than this sport-suspension BMW. Although this Beemer rode on 16" instead of 17" like most other cars in this comparison, it still excelled in handling & steering communication.

When our Consumer Report magazine compared the S60's ride comfort w/ Mercedes C-Class & BMW 3-series w/o the sport suspension, the Volvo simply lags behind.

"...very comfortable seats, a Swedish type cabin that I find more relaxing than German cars, all-day Grand touring like cruising with *very* comfortable ride quality characteristics in their newest cars. I respect German cars but they just don't do it for me, somethings hard and a bit cold about them."

When the FWD roomy Volvo - the 850 - was first introduced, I was impressed how much Volvo have perfected the car compared to my primitive '86 760 Turbo - Everything from the existence of steering feedbacks, no fishtail problem, brake that's not touchy, more cylinder w/o turbo, driving position(arm rest placement & adjustable steering), outside-mirror area coverage, stereo location & button size, climate control air-outlet distribution selection, & stretch-able rear toe room.

& w/ that impressive interior ambience of these furnitures, I dreamed of owning one, only to discover a ridiculously-bad choppy ride on the bumpy concrete section of I-10 in Covina CA. So as I mentioned about it to my cousin who was a Mercedes sales man locally, he soon received an 850 trade in. He, too, was impressed by the Volvo's interior & started to disagree w/ my "over-critical" comment. The funny thing is when he drove that car on that same section of I-10, he couldn't disagree w/ me more! "Gosh, that beautiful comfortable interior can be deceiving!", he felt.

Anyway, that was then. In the '02 LA Auto Show, I was very impressed by the comfortable front seating & driving position of the Mercedes new C-Class, Jaguar S-type & the Volvo S60. In '03, the Mazda6's driving position is also amazingly comfortable & relaxing yet also feels serious as a fighterjet cockpit. That Japanese cushion length was disappointingly short compare to Volvo's, however.

creakid1 · August 2003

creakid1 "Mazda3" Aug 28, 2003 8:18am

qbrozen · August 2003

creakid, it wasn't you who criticized the sales numbers, it was wsag26. So that's where all the talk of sales numbers originated (when wsag26 said Volvo is not in good shape).

anyway, concerning the SUV numbers, I looked for the same thing, but if you look at the numbers I posted, you will see that SUV sales counted for just 29% of sales while total sales were up 64% from the previous year. So, as you can see, of the 13 thousand units sold in May, only about 3800 were SUVs. If you do the math, you'll see that Volvo sold roughly 50% more cars in May of '03 vs. May of '02.

And, on this same point, I saw another article where Volvo claimed their strongest quarter of their history recently (i believe it was the 2nd quarter of this year).

qbrozen · August 2003

I can't get to those articles? Am I the only one? It comes up with a subscription page.

benjamins · August 2003

I think Volvo makes cars that aren't as driver oriented as Audi, some Mazdas, BMWs, some Mercedes, etc. So, the ride/handling compromise is biased towards ride and safe handling at the extreme. That's the way most Volvos are set up. Regarding what Consumer Reports says, I don't.

I've driven or been driven in scores of Mercedes, BMWs, Audis, Volvos. There are variations. Some of the Mercedes have been very rough riding, ditto BMW, Audi and Volvo. It all depends on the state of the car, tire pressure, etc., and the type of suspensions. I don't the find the sports suspensions on BMWs and Audis supple as the car rags do. I find them borderline harsh and can be punishing on certain types of rough surfaces. The Volvo R were horrible in the past, the s70 with 17 inch tires were very rough riding, but the standard 850 and s70 with 16 inch tires and softer springs rode well on almost every surface I could find while offering respectable handling. Regarding the C class vs. 3 series BMW vs s60 ride comfort a variety of tests have been done with a variety of conclusions. I've seen the 3 series finised first most of the time, but the Volvo has as well, and Mercedes not as much. Car magazine did a long term review of an s60 and concluded that it had an amazingly fine ride, bumps felt in a long term 3 series BMW were all but ignored in their s60.

All 3 cars ride very well, IMO. But I think Volvo has the most comfortable damping, the springs are just a bit softer, and what I like about it is it has more "glide" to it where Mercedes and BMW are typical German "glued to the ground". Mercedes and BMW do better on bumpy curves, I'll give them that. But there's a harder edge to the way BMW and Mercedes take bumps compared to Jag, Volvo, Lexus. It may boil down to preferences, and car rags love driving cars and may not, I think, notice the harder edge to some cars or fine more impact harshness acceptable than many car buyers.

I think those looking for BMW, Mazda, Ford Focus handling with Volvo aren't going to find it, and I think the new s40 will probably have softened handling compared to the Mazda and Ford versions of the platform. Where the Volvo will excel is in all day comfort, highway stability, and other Volvo strengths. So, I'm not so much into the constant BMW is the standard, or the car that does best around twisties is the standard, that's just a small part of driving. For most drivers, especially in the U.S., their driving consists of crowded highways, bumpy surfaces (esp. in the Northeast), driving behind slow moving traffic (I see people slow down for corners in BMWs, Mazdas, and all sorts of cars that could take the corners all of the time). Most drivers can't tell the difference between the sharp handling cars and the less sharp handling ones. Therefore I understand Volvo's pragmatic approach to handling/ride compromise and bias towards ride (and I think, despite nonsense from CR, that Volvo's new cars ride superbly over most surfaces and prefer its damping to German cars). I would like to see Volvo build a car that competes in handling/ride with BMW to show that they can. They should have with the s60 R. I'd also like to see Volvo strengthen their bushings and suspension components so that they don't feel "baggy" after 25,000 miles. But, I don't feel that the automotive world has to think BMW every time they get in to a car and feel that other lines do overall practical, day to day living in a style that fits most drivers needs, well.

volvomax · August 2003

The current S40 debuted in 1995.
It was the replacement for the 340 and 440 models.
These were Europe only cars that were deemed too small for the US.
The current S40 IS NOT a Mitsubishi Carisma.
While it shares components w/ Mitsu the sharing is only about 10% of the car.
The chassis is related to the 850 platform.
The current S40 was also never intended for the US either. Only a long and heated campaign by Volvo's US dealers made it a reality.

benjamins · August 2003

VolvoMax,

How much of the current s40 is shared with Focus and Mazda?

You say the chassis of the old s40 is related to the 850 platform but I believe it uses a multi-link rear and not the Delta link of the 850/s70.

creakid1 · August 2003

Maybe he was talking about the structural technology related to the 850.

From the AutoExpress article I listed above in #89:
"The Japanese firm is involved because its Carisma is built on the same platform as the S40, and both cars are produced at the same Dutch factory."

jchan2 · August 2003

can anyone tell me what a Mitsubishi carisma is? Photos, a platform, something to make me find out what the Carisma really is besides a twin of the Volvo S40.

robr2 · August 2003

Here you go:

http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/carisma/

creakid1 · August 2003

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%.

volvomax · August 2003

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.

jhorl · August 2003

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

jchan2 · August 2003

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.

creakid1 · August 2003

"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.

benjamins · August 2003

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?

creakid1 · August 2003

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.

benjamins · August 2003

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?

jchan2 · August 2003

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.

smo615 · September 2003

There is a new article on the S40 on Autoweeks' website.

New S40/V50

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles