I suspect that, due to the low production volume of the 6-speed, it will be a no-cost or maybe even extra-cost option. What's the base price on a T5 with AT?
but, unlike the TSX, the 6-sp stick on the T-5 is just as inexpensive as the 5-sp stick on the 2.4, which means the S40's auto is always a $1200 option even on the T-5.
The cool thing: cruising less than 2000 rpm at 60 mph w/ max 236-lb torque available at 1500 rpm.
T-5 is $2800 over the 2.4i.
Auto is $1200 over the stick, 5 or 6 sp.
Base price of 2.4i stick is $22990 plus $685 destination.
"Base price of 2.4i stick is $22990 plus $685 destination."
What's your source? I'm not questioning it, I'd just like to know where the number can from. The Volvo web site only has the AT info.
That would make the T5 base price $26485 with destination, assuming the T5 6-sp MT will be $1200 less than the T5 AT, which I doubt. You really can't assume that just because the AT is a +$1200 option on the 2.4i that this will also be true on the T5. That extra cog isn't likely to be free.
Don't feel shy visiting the dealers. The window stickers say so, & they're even interested in taking your order for the '05 stick. They also appreciate your comparison test drives b/t the sport & regular suspension, & the 2.4i & T-5. Some dealers have 2 demos, one 2.4i & one T-5.
I don't know how are they gonna sell the 2.4i w/ the $750 sport suspension, 'cause you might as well just get the Mazda 3S w/ a quieter-revving 4-cyl.
"I don't know how are they gonna sell the 2.4i w/ the $750 sport suspension, 'cause you might as well just get the Mazda 3S w/ a quieter-revving 4-cyl. "
There are always enough "upscale" buyers that buy Volvo over Mazda just because of the brand name and some exterior and interior niceties.
And Volvo is a kind of "limited production" manufacturer (relatively).
In my neighborhood, I could see "conservative but sporty" S40 to be bought as a first car for teens more than the "obviously sporty" Mazda.
And with the appropriate sales pitch "The sport suspension will make this car safer during the cornering, etc.,etc.", I could see a lot of people I know buying into that. Plus "$750 does not mean much, when it come to the safety of my kid" - I am a bit fastidious here. While stronger engine will have exactly opposite effect: "I do not want my kid to race in this car!!!".
especially if the car is more oversteer prone than the regular suspension. Mercedes once pointed out that it is dangerous offering cars capable doing high cornering g-force -- You will crash while doing that. It is true that the at-the-limit handling is more edgy for cars that break loose only at a higher cornering g-force.
creakid1 "Mazda3" Oct 12, 2003 6:05pm The $695 DSTC does cut down accident rate & save lives, but very un-educational for the novice to become knowing how to drive. So you might as well have the kids practice w/ the DSTC switched off in controlled environment.
"The base model leaned a bit much, and tire noise was prevalent as it squeeled in protest to hard driving, but the T5 model handled very well, with LESS UNDERSTEER AND LEAN."
Let's make sure. Didn't the 2.4i also got the optional sport suspension? At least the wheel style does look like it. The T-5 has more tire grip due to the larger wheels.
I highly suspected that Volvo tries to impress the younger crowds by demonstrating the new S40's sporty handling so the sport suspension is on every car being showed off on the track, since Volvo was afraid to place bumps to let anyone experience them the "hard" way. I'm pretty sure the shiny grey T-5 on the stage does not have the sport suspension despite wearing the showy 5-spoke wheels. The car moves upward slowly after I pushed down the corners checking out for shock rebound.
You sure there was less lean in the T-5?
By the way, when you meant less understeer, did you mean more oversteer? Or they're both understeer biased, but the T-5 w/ larger wheels has a higher limit before the understeer starts?
My drive event was in the rain, but both the T-5 & 2.4i ended up w/ a trace of oversteer at times even w/ the DSTC on.
The S40, T5 or 2.4i, will do what any front wheel car does in a corner. When stepping on the power, it will understeer. When letting go of the accelerator, it will oversteer.
So why are you wondering if ateiceira meant oversteer instead of understeer? Just curious, nothing else.
"The S40, T5 or 2.4i, will do what any front wheel car does in a corner. When stepping on the power, it will understeer. When letting go of the accelerator, it will oversteer."
That may be true for the Mazda3, but some cars are tuned understeer bias so they only shift b/t heavy understeer & neutral, especially if the rear suspension is a poor-designed, such as struts, that does uncontrolled, rather than controlled, fishtail.
My abrupt lane-change test is more provoking than slalom, so the Mazda3 showed both understeer & oversteer during the process, while none of the S40's(even w/o DSTC) showed any oversteer. So the S40's, BOTH sport & regular, are more understeer-prone than the Mazda3. But that's ok, since the Mazda3 might be oversteering more than necessary anyway.
The S40's(both 2.4i & T-5) small trace of oversteer happening on the wet track while doing some hard cornering was also programmed by the DSTC to keep the understeer down to relatively low level.
I want to make sure that the regular suspension on the T-5 can still allow a little bit of oversteer to be dialed in. & if the 2.4i on the track has the regular suspension(which I doubt) that is more understeer biased than the sport-suspension 17" T-5, then I'd expect not much fun tossing the regular-suspension T-5 around.
creakid1: not sure if the 2.4i models I drove had the sport suspension or not. They had Michelin tires, IIRC. The T5 models had Pirellis, much lower profile and much grippier.
I remember because Michelin also sponsored the event, yet the better cars had tires from another brand!
The T5 felt like a bull in a china shop, that course was way too tight to test its limits.
Perhaps the tire noise from the 2.4i models excacerbated the perceived amount of lean in the turns?
Both understeered. The 2.4i did a *lot* IMO. In the T5 I felt it less plus I felt DSTC kicking in. Higher limits, and quick-acting DSTC when you exceed them, it seemed.
Volvo salesmen should choose their test drive path wisely. Let prospective T5 buyers open it up a little, with wider turns so the turbo stays on boost.
Finally, it came to New York. Can't really come to any great conclusions about the car. Can it oversteer? Maybe, I don't know, the 2.4 seemed to understeer a bit. The T5 a bit more neutral. Steering feel is fine, nothing razor sharp, feel is there, effort and feedback are very good. Changes direction well. Can't tell about ride, the t5 seemed to jiggle somewhat on somewhat uneven pavement in the parking lot, but I could'nt really tell to what degree.
The interior is better in light colors that show contrast, like the light gray. I didn't love the volvo t tech but it seemed to be grippy. At this point I'm not used to the lower visibility and lower driving position that the car offers, I'm used to the 700/900, s70 driving position, so I felt like I never sat in a commanding position. It felt similar to driving a Passat in position, but with smaller windows. Seats are firmer than s60 and bigger Volvos, but supportive enough. They just don't have the plushness of the bigger Volvos. Car looks nice enough, I still find it truncated at the back. I like the red car with black base, as opposed to all red. For me, the s60 is still the best looking Volvo sedan and the s80 the most balanced, though aging. I'll say the s40 may look sportier in some ways than s60.
I didn't test acceleration and brakes. The cars run smoothly and have a different exhaust note than s60. There's not enough room to test these things though some drivers tried and got warning by Volvo personnel to slow it down.
I would need a more extensive drive, over bumps, over various types of roads, accelerating and merging, to get more of an idea. Still feels like a Volvo cruiser to me, not as tightly sprung as most German cars, but I'm not sure. I'd be able to tell over crests and bumps and such. I'm a little warmer on the interior but don't like the plastic molding on top of the doors. I don't feel the high arm rest that Creak is talking about and think the doors panels could be more organic. They feel a bit boxy. Center console looks good, though not necessarily revolutionary, even if it is. I'm more interested in the controls and placement on them and their layout. Interior is simple, maybe a bit too simple. I don't feel this car is a BMW 3 series competitor in how it feels. It may handle and perform well, but the overall feel isn't in that league. I'll go along with Acura TSX as competitor, not sure it matches Audi A4 feel either. The BMW competitor is the softer handling s60, that feels like a higher quality car, especially after going to it from sitting in an s40 that was right next to it.
s40 is nice car, but maybe still feels like an entry level Volvo and lower rung than the s60, v70, s80, xc90, which all feel fairly close to each other in quality. I'd have to think about the s40 and test and retest it. But I'd probably end up with the s60, I don't value handling that much over overall feel, here's where the s60 is superior and worth a little more money to me even if the back seat room is poor. The new s40 is a big improvement over the old, in solidity, handling, engine, tightness of chassis, and is an up-to-date car, complete with the silly integrated grill in bumper that would have to be replaced if bumper is damaged. What happened to the European form follows function? There are many concessions to style in most of the new European cars.
Just drove the S40 T5 for the first time the other day. I have mixed emotions about this car. It was fun to drive, and had some decent power, but the visibility is terrible and I was concerned about the autoshifter. I noticed that under very hard acceleration with the autoshift, the shifts were not smooth and actually banged hard into gear. Handling was better than what I anticipated, I guess the Pirrellis are to account for this. The other issue I have is the the ergonimics of the seating configuration are not that great. The center console is not rounded enough on the edge to allow you to rest your leg or knee comfortably on it for any extended period of time.
Reasonably equipped, a T-5 6-sp manual w/ DSTC & premium package(moonroof, leather, pwr seats w/ memory, 8-way passenger-seat adjustment plus lumbar) costs about $29400.
A 325i 5-sp manual w/ DSC(std), moonroof, leather, pwr seats w/ memory, 8-way sport seats($550 special order), 4-way lumbar for both seats($450 special order) costs about $33300.
If you remove the moonroof & leather, which you can't in the T-5 w/ multiple-adjustment passenger seat, the Beemer costs about $30800.
I am not sure why everyone seems to want to compare Volvo to Mazda. Mazda and Volvo are not even in the same league, and I am not sure they really even compete for the same customers.
Actually my wife has a Mazda P5, and my best friend has a Mazda6. There is no way you can compare either of these 2 cars to a Volvo, and I hardly think that the Mazda3 should be compared either. The build quality and materials used in Volov's are far superior to anything Mazda has ever offered. I have a 1994 850 Turbo which has 107,000 miles and still runs like a dream. And I do not drive it mildly either. I have had to replace tires, brake rotors, and ball-joints, but that's about it. These new cars need to be tested head-to-head against the BMW 3 series, Audi A4, Mercedes C class, Saab 9.3.
The Mazda6 is bigger and has a totally different character.
that's sort of my point. Just because 2 vehicles can be brought close to each other on price does not mean they should be compared. Granted, I understand, the 3-series is close in size and intention to the S40, but when you have to load up the S40 and strip down the 325 just so you can compare 2 vehicles with like prices, I think that's stretching it.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
"Putting that aside, I still believe the T5 will spank the 325 on the track."
On the track, each corner is predictable. But how about in the real world such as on unfamiliar curves, where the turbo boost's "after shock" can become an excess so you might have to drive just a tad conservatively slow to prevent that.
Also, the T-5's mighty torque might delay till 3k rpm.
If you just lug it manually below 2k rpm FOR A SECOND, then yes the max torque will eventually churn out as low as 1500rpm. But as the car accelerates from stop & the boost finally spools up to the max, the rpm already rose to near 3k.
& if you shift around that rpm, which is typical for everyday driving, then the 325i should be about as fast.
The 325i's short front overhang/weight means even the comfortable non-sport suspension can corner fast, & that part is faster then the S40.
The RX-8 can do even better than the 325i in this area, as the light-weight rotary(unfortunately wastes fuel) sits completely behind the front axle.
"I can also load up a Mazda6 with every conceivable option and make it close to both of these in price. But does that mean they are comparable?"
Yes, I think the Mazda 6S, which is quieter & smoother riding than the Mazda3, is comparable to the T-5, although it's a way roomier car. But price wise, the 6S is even cheaper than the TSX, which is already about $5k less than a comparably equipped S40 2.4i.
So, by comparison, the 325i's price is quite close to the T-5 comparably equipped. The '04.5 special-order 325i's sport seats got cushion-length extension, & the lumbar can go up & down. Not to mention the 4-way adjustable front headrests. The memory seating also remembers to tilt down the right-side mirror during reverse, & the climate control includes auto recirculate & charcoal filter.
Let's try to keep this discussion focused on the new Volvos, and steer away from a bunch of comparisons. Thanks!
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
If I recall correctly, there were a couple people in here who didn't particularly like the new S40's interior because of either the center control console or because of the interior door trim (or lack thereof).
Although I don't think either of these areas are "strong" points for the S40, I don't have any complaints about them. I personally think Volvo added some personality and youth appeal to the center panel.
On the other hand, I wish to lodge my own personal complaint regarding the S40's gauge cluster. It's about half the size of the S60, with only two round dials?!! I realize this is extremely subjective, but I think it appears rather "downmarket" for a Volvo. Maybe somebody thought they should start with the IS300's cluster, and shrink it down??
Creakid1: I hear what you're saying, but not everyone likes the 3-series Sport seats. I've owned both. I find them too firm, and I have chatted with many others who have the same opinion. Many people actually prefer the standard seats, which have lumbar support fixed in a perfect position for my anatomy. With this, I can subtract $1000 off your price.
Maybe we should start a comparison topic between the S40, TSX, and 325i?
"comparably equipped", the 325 is more expensive than the T5. 'nuff said. By the way, my wife's Pilot cost right about the same as a loaded T5. So I guess they are comparable.
I've said it many times before, if you know your car and know how to drive it, the turbo lag/boost does not affect or bother you (ESPECIALLY with a stick). I always know what mine is going to do (even with an auto) because I am in tune with it. I know right where to put my foot to get the response I'm looking for. And if you want to shop cars simply on how they perform in daily city driving, you can be just as happy with a Scion as your BMW. Cars like the S40 are for those people who want to do more than just get from point A to point B.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Some car magazines are reporting August as the availability date for the manual. However, the sales manager at my local dealership told me it likely won't be until January. They don't even have the capability of ordering an S40 with a manual yet. I am waiting for a manual with AWD. The T5 FWD has too much torque steer for my taste, even with automatic transmission. I have never driven a Volvo with a manual transmission. Does anyone know if the S40 will have the famous space-ball shifter, or will it be a more conventional manual? I just hope it has a smooth, precise operation. Something similar to a Honda or BMW feel to the clutch and shifter might be enough to close the deal for me.
True, we can't order them yet. Fall as far as I know. As for driving them, the shifter will look more conventional. Clutch take-up is similar to the S60R, it can be a little abrupt. Short throws, overall a nice feel. Better than previous Volvo manuals.
sat in one today (a T5) at the dealer as a refresher (I drove one when they first arrived). I think the interior looks nice, and felt like good quality. Nice seats, decent room. From some of the comments here, I was starting to think the interior would make a '72 Pinto look good :-0)
More importantly, the ergonomics seemed right (the relation of seat/pedals/wheel/switchs, etc). Just seems like it should be an easy car to drive and live with.
As to the stick, I have driven a few (S60 T5 and R), and the shifter is OK, but the clutch has a much different feel than my other cars (Maxima and Miata), or an Accord. More of an "on/off" switch feel if that makes sense (ie, not as progressive).
"I just hope it has a smooth, precise operation. Something similar to a Honda or BMW feel to the clutch and shifter might be enough to close the deal for me."
BMW manual? I couldn't shift the '00 323i sport smoothly during the test drive. Maybe it's due to the unusually high friction point.
The S40, both 5-sp & 6-sp, went ok as I shifted from 1st to 2nd during the drive event.
"And if you want to shop cars simply on how they perform in daily city driving, you can be just as happy with a Scion as your BMW. Cars like the S40 are for those people who want to do more than just get from point A to point B."
Most 3-series buyers are happy w/ the way the 325i's 2.5 performs, eventhough its low-end is still weaker than the 323i's 2.5, but I know people around me always get the C320 over the C240 only because this Mercedes 2.6 got excessively weak low end torque. The S40 2.4i is simply unacceptably noisy to rev for such class, as any driver trying to shoot through the fwy on ramp can tell. That's why even average drivers would "have to" upgrade to the quieter T-5. Fortunately the base T-5 auto only costs about $27700, which is acceptable.
I agree with creakid1 that the base 2.4i engine is noisy, much more so than it should be for this class of car. The T5 engine is noticeably quieter. Also, I just read the June issue of Automobile Magazine. On page 120 there is a one page article on the V50 Wagon. They report that AWD is only available with automatic transmission, and the manual is only available with FWD. I hope this is not true for the S40 sedan. This will be a deal breaker for me if I can't get a manual with AWD.
Nothing I have ever heard regarding the S40 or V50 implies that V50 AWD will only be available with AT. But I guess we'll have to wait and see until it arrives or someone with better knowledge (read volvomax) set us all straight on the issue.
I dont think you "have to" upgrade to the T5. Thats crazy talk, I bought a 2.4i and its plently quick for me and the noise is not loud at all. I dont understand why people must have seed? I had an Explorer before my S40, and let me tell you...Not many people passed me. I dont know where you all are from but, your not really gonna need that extra second on your way to 60 MPH.
I guess it depends on what you are used to. If you compare the 2.4i to a Japanese 4 cylinder like the Honda Accord or Mazda 6, then the Volvo is more noisy and less smooth. And it's really not significantly more powerful. Also, when I buy a sport sedan, I want performance as well as refinement. The T5 gives both. And the gas mileage is better on the T5 than the 2.4i because it has taller gearing.
Volvo does not promote S40 as a "sport" sedan, or at least I could not find such direct statement in any of the Volvo generated marketing materials. Yes, they say, it's a car with the attitude, but that implies the T5 engine. As far as I understand, their set of characteristics goes in the following sequence - design, safety, excitement (with T5).
But it's just my opinion. I will be interested to see the links to the marketing literature with the different message.
I know what your saying. I was just talking to the people who are pretty much saying the 2.4i is not a drive able car, and that you "have to" get the T5. If money and timing was not an issue I would have gotten a T5. But I needed to get the car right away(could not special order, most T5's are optioned out), and was not really in the market to spend more that 26K. I also wanted Leather so, I had to opt with the 2.4i. And I am very satisfied I just wanted to inform people who are in the same boat I am in that the 2.4i is a very good car.
And probably never will be able to. There just isn't enough demand in the this car for a MT. They never offered one in the V40 either. They probably just had the Euro versions at the ride-and-drive to get people interested in the car.
the Mazda6, both 4 & 6 cylinder, is a more sporty car than the NEW S40, that's why you can get it w/ stick?
The only sedan sold w/ high-% of stick is the BMW 3-series, & the Mazda6 is more of a Beemer competitor than the new S40? Which means, despite lower price than the TSX, which is already about $5k less than the S40 2.4i similarly equipped, the Mazda6 competes w/ the 3-series.
At least the other sporty handling sedans like the Mazda3 or TSX cannot double the duty as a relaxing riding cruiser. & a lot of people including myself want both ride & handling.
Ride-comfort wise, I suspect the 325i w/ the long-spring base suspension still rides more like the C230K sedan than either the Mazda6 or the S40 non-sport.
Let's see, a good "decent-handling compact-luxury" comparison test would be "S40 T-5(non-sport) vs 325i(non-sport) vs C230K(sport is std) vs X-type 3.0(2.5 is too weak)sport vs Mazda6s". The non-sport Jag & Benz would be too squishy to compare.
A good "sport compact w/o bone-jarring shallow-ride" comparison test would be "S40 2.4i sport vs TSX vs Mazda3s".
Comments
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
-juice
The cool thing: cruising less than 2000 rpm at 60 mph w/ max 236-lb torque available at 1500 rpm.
T-5 is $2800 over the 2.4i.
Auto is $1200 over the stick, 5 or 6 sp.
Base price of 2.4i stick is $22990 plus $685 destination.
That would put a base V50 T5 AWD at around $29.5k list. Automatic would push that over $30k.
That is a lot for a small wagon, but I'm sure the OSD price would be a lot better.
This is funny - the V50 brochurs lists length at 117.8". The S40 brochure is more accurate. Now that's a compact wagon! ;-)
-juice
What's your source? I'm not questioning it, I'd just like to know where the number can from. The Volvo web site only has the AT info.
That would make the T5 base price $26485 with destination, assuming the T5 6-sp MT will be $1200 less than the T5 AT, which I doubt. You really can't assume that just because the AT is a +$1200 option on the 2.4i that this will also be true on the T5. That extra cog isn't likely to be free.
I don't know how are they gonna sell the 2.4i w/ the $750 sport suspension, 'cause you might as well just get the Mazda 3S w/ a quieter-revving 4-cyl.
There are always enough "upscale" buyers that buy Volvo over Mazda just because of the brand name and some exterior and interior niceties.
And Volvo is a kind of "limited production" manufacturer (relatively).
In my neighborhood, I could see "conservative but sporty" S40 to be bought as a first car for teens more than the "obviously sporty" Mazda.
And with the appropriate sales pitch "The sport suspension will make this car safer during the cornering, etc.,etc.", I could see a lot of people I know buying into that. Plus "$750 does not mean much, when it come to the safety of my kid" - I am a bit fastidious here.
While stronger engine will have exactly opposite effect: "I do not want my kid to race in this car!!!".
Make sense?
creakid1 "Mazda3" Oct 12, 2003 6:05pm
The $695 DSTC does cut down accident rate & save lives, but very un-educational for the novice to become knowing how to drive. So you might as well have the kids practice w/ the DSTC switched off in controlled environment.
Let's make sure. Didn't the 2.4i also got the optional sport suspension? At least the wheel style does look like it. The T-5 has more tire grip due to the larger wheels.
I highly suspected that Volvo tries to impress the younger crowds by demonstrating the new S40's sporty handling so the sport suspension is on every car being showed off on the track, since Volvo was afraid to place bumps to let anyone experience them the "hard" way. I'm pretty sure the shiny grey T-5 on the stage does not have the sport suspension despite wearing the showy 5-spoke wheels. The car moves upward slowly after I pushed down the corners checking out for shock rebound.
You sure there was less lean in the T-5?
By the way, when you meant less understeer, did you mean more oversteer? Or they're both understeer biased, but the T-5 w/ larger wheels has a higher limit before the understeer starts?
My drive event was in the rain, but both the T-5 & 2.4i ended up w/ a trace of oversteer at times even w/ the DSTC on.
So why are you wondering if ateiceira meant oversteer instead of understeer? Just curious, nothing else.
That may be true for the Mazda3, but some cars are tuned understeer bias so they only shift b/t heavy understeer & neutral, especially if the rear suspension is a poor-designed, such as struts, that does uncontrolled, rather than controlled, fishtail.
My abrupt lane-change test is more provoking than slalom, so the Mazda3 showed both understeer & oversteer during the process, while none of the S40's(even w/o DSTC) showed any oversteer. So the S40's, BOTH sport & regular, are more understeer-prone than the Mazda3. But that's ok, since the Mazda3 might be oversteering more than necessary anyway.
The S40's(both 2.4i & T-5) small trace of oversteer happening on the wet track while doing some hard cornering was also programmed by the DSTC to keep the understeer down to relatively low level.
I want to make sure that the regular suspension on the T-5 can still allow a little bit of oversteer to be dialed in. & if the 2.4i on the track has the regular suspension(which I doubt) that is more understeer biased than the sport-suspension 17" T-5, then I'd expect not much fun tossing the regular-suspension T-5 around.
Man, does that mean all the 5 spds. are gonna be 05 models. So much for getting a 04 5 spd. model near the end of the year at a discounted price.
I guess it makes sense tho, seeing how the 2005s come out ~ Aug. Although, the 2005 Escape is already on sale...so who knows.
I remember because Michelin also sponsored the event, yet the better cars had tires from another brand!
The T5 felt like a bull in a china shop, that course was way too tight to test its limits.
Perhaps the tire noise from the 2.4i models excacerbated the perceived amount of lean in the turns?
Both understeered. The 2.4i did a *lot* IMO. In the T5 I felt it less plus I felt DSTC kicking in. Higher limits, and quick-acting DSTC when you exceed them, it seemed.
Volvo salesmen should choose their test drive path wisely. Let prospective T5 buyers open it up a little, with wider turns so the turbo stays on boost.
-juice
The interior is better in light colors that show contrast, like the light gray. I didn't love the volvo t tech but it seemed to be grippy. At this point I'm not used to the lower visibility and lower driving position that the car offers, I'm used to the 700/900, s70 driving position, so I felt like I never sat in a commanding position. It felt similar to driving a Passat in position, but with smaller windows. Seats are firmer than s60 and bigger Volvos, but supportive enough. They just don't have the plushness of the bigger Volvos. Car looks nice enough, I still find it truncated at the back. I like the red car with black base, as opposed to all red. For me, the s60 is still the best looking Volvo sedan and the s80 the most balanced, though aging. I'll say the s40 may look sportier in some ways than s60.
I didn't test acceleration and brakes. The cars run smoothly and have a different exhaust note than s60. There's not enough room to test these things though some drivers tried and got warning by Volvo personnel to slow it down.
I would need a more extensive drive, over bumps, over various types of roads, accelerating and merging, to get more of an idea. Still feels like a Volvo cruiser to me, not as tightly sprung as most German cars, but I'm not sure. I'd be able to tell over crests and bumps and such. I'm a little warmer on the interior but don't like the plastic molding on top of the doors. I don't feel the high arm rest that Creak is talking about and think the doors panels could be more organic. They feel a bit boxy. Center console looks good, though not necessarily revolutionary, even if it is. I'm more interested in the controls and placement on them and their layout. Interior is simple, maybe a bit too simple. I don't feel this car is a BMW 3 series competitor in how it feels. It may handle and perform well, but the overall feel isn't in that league. I'll go along with Acura TSX as competitor, not sure it matches Audi A4 feel either. The BMW competitor is the softer handling s60, that feels like a higher quality car, especially after going to it from sitting in an s40 that was right next to it.
s40 is nice car, but maybe still feels like an entry level Volvo and lower rung than the s60, v70, s80, xc90, which all feel fairly close to each other in quality. I'd have to think about the s40 and test and retest it. But I'd probably end up with the s60, I don't value handling that much over overall feel, here's where the s60 is superior and worth a little more money to me even if the back seat room is poor. The new s40 is a big improvement over the old, in solidity, handling, engine, tightness of chassis, and is an up-to-date car, complete with the silly integrated grill in bumper that would have to be replaced if bumper is damaged. What happened to the European form follows function? There are many concessions to style in most of the new European cars.
-juice
3.77:1
Ratio/mph per 1000rpm
0.65/30.4----> So the car will stride under 2k rpm @ 60mph!
Maximum speed
142mph/4670rpm
That's what Mazda's are for! Take the 4-cyl 3S. Have you driven one? It seems to rev quieter than the S40 2.4i.
A 325i 5-sp manual w/ DSC(std), moonroof, leather, pwr seats w/ memory, 8-way sport seats($550 special order), 4-way lumbar for both seats($450 special order) costs about $33300.
If you remove the moonroof & leather, which you can't in the T-5 w/ multiple-adjustment passenger seat, the Beemer costs about $30800.
So these 2 cars are quite comparable, price wise.
Putting that aside, I still believe the T5 will spank the 325 on the track. But we'll see. The magazine comparos are not far away, I'm sure.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The Mazda6 is bigger and has a totally different character.
-juice
that's sort of my point. Just because 2 vehicles can be brought close to each other on price does not mean they should be compared. Granted, I understand, the 3-series is close in size and intention to the S40, but when you have to load up the S40 and strip down the 325 just so you can compare 2 vehicles with like prices, I think that's stretching it.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
On the track, each corner is predictable. But how about in the real world such as on unfamiliar curves, where the turbo boost's "after shock" can become an excess so you might have to drive just a tad conservatively slow to prevent that.
Also, the T-5's mighty torque might delay till 3k rpm.
If you just lug it manually below 2k rpm FOR A SECOND, then yes the max torque will eventually churn out as low as 1500rpm. But as the car accelerates from stop & the boost finally spools up to the max, the rpm already rose to near 3k.
& if you shift around that rpm, which is typical for everyday driving, then the 325i should be about as fast.
The 325i's short front overhang/weight means even the comfortable non-sport suspension can corner fast, & that part is faster then the S40.
The RX-8 can do even better than the 325i in this area, as the light-weight rotary(unfortunately wastes fuel) sits completely behind the front axle.
"I can also load up a Mazda6 with every conceivable option and make it close to both of these in price. But does that mean they are comparable?"
Yes, I think the Mazda 6S, which is quieter & smoother riding than the Mazda3, is comparable to the T-5, although it's a way roomier car. But price wise, the 6S is even cheaper than the TSX, which is already about $5k less than a comparably equipped S40 2.4i.
So, by comparison, the 325i's price is quite close to the T-5 comparably equipped. The '04.5 special-order 325i's sport seats got cushion-length extension, & the lumbar can go up & down. Not to mention the 4-way adjustable front headrests. The memory seating also remembers to tilt down the right-side mirror during reverse, & the climate control includes auto recirculate & charcoal filter.
By the way, we just re-ordered our 325i this way:
creakid1 "BMW 3-Series Sedans" Apr 28, 2004 4:11am
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Although I don't think either of these areas are "strong" points for the S40, I don't have any complaints about them. I personally think Volvo added some personality and youth appeal to the center panel.
On the other hand, I wish to lodge my own personal complaint regarding the S40's gauge cluster. It's about half the size of the S60, with only two round dials?!! I realize this is extremely subjective, but I think it appears rather "downmarket" for a Volvo. Maybe somebody thought they should start with the IS300's cluster, and shrink it down??
Creakid1: I hear what you're saying, but not everyone likes the 3-series Sport seats. I've owned both. I find them too firm, and I have chatted with many others who have the same opinion. Many people actually prefer the standard seats, which have lumbar support fixed in a perfect position for my anatomy. With this, I can subtract $1000 off your price.
Maybe we should start a comparison topic between the S40, TSX, and 325i?
& there's the C-class sedan 1.8 Kompressor(sport & non-sport), 2.6(non-sport), & 3.2(non-sport & sport)...
X-Type 2.5/3.0, either non-sport or sport.
At least the TSX & Mazda 3S only come in 4-cyl sport.
I've said it many times before, if you know your car and know how to drive it, the turbo lag/boost does not affect or bother you (ESPECIALLY with a stick). I always know what mine is going to do (even with an auto) because I am in tune with it. I know right where to put my foot to get the response I'm looking for. And if you want to shop cars simply on how they perform in daily city driving, you can be just as happy with a Scion as your BMW. Cars like the S40 are for those people who want to do more than just get from point A to point B.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
IIRC, the suspension is the same either way, only the wheels/tires are different (along with body pieces of course).
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Actually, the same can be said for the Mercedes C230K. (C-class 1.8) I don't think it is available in US in non-sport. And don't forget the A4 1.8T.
Just in case I start warming up to the interior, does anybody know when the '05 S40s (with stick shift) will first be available here in the states?
Fall as far as I know.
As for driving them, the shifter will look more conventional. Clutch take-up is similar to the S60R, it can be a little abrupt.
Short throws, overall a nice feel. Better than previous Volvo manuals.
More importantly, the ergonomics seemed right (the relation of seat/pedals/wheel/switchs, etc). Just seems like it should be an easy car to drive and live with.
As to the stick, I have driven a few (S60 T5 and R), and the shifter is OK, but the clutch has a much different feel than my other cars (Maxima and Miata), or an Accord. More of an "on/off" switch feel if that makes sense (ie, not as progressive).
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
BMW manual? I couldn't shift the '00 323i sport smoothly during the test drive. Maybe it's due to the unusually high friction point.
The S40, both 5-sp & 6-sp, went ok as I shifted from 1st to 2nd during the drive event.
Most 3-series buyers are happy w/ the way the 325i's 2.5 performs, eventhough its low-end is still weaker than the 323i's 2.5, but I know people around me always get the C320 over the C240 only because this Mercedes 2.6 got excessively weak low end torque. The S40 2.4i is simply unacceptably noisy to rev for such class, as any driver trying to shoot through the fwy on ramp can tell. That's why even average drivers would "have to" upgrade to the quieter T-5. Fortunately the base T-5 auto only costs about $27700, which is acceptable.
Also, I just read the June issue of Automobile Magazine. On page 120 there is a one page article on the V50 Wagon. They report that AWD is only available with automatic transmission, and the manual is only available with FWD. I hope this is not true for the S40 sedan. This will be a deal breaker for me if I can't get a manual with AWD.
Volvo does not promote S40 as a "sport" sedan, or at least I could not find such direct statement in any of the Volvo generated marketing materials.
Yes, they say, it's a car with the attitude, but that implies the T5 engine.
As far as I understand, their set of characteristics goes in the following sequence - design, safety, excitement (with T5).
But it's just my opinion. I will be interested to see the links to the marketing literature with the different message.
And probably never will be able to. There just isn't enough demand in the this car for a MT. They never offered one in the V40 either. They probably just had the Euro versions at the ride-and-drive to get people interested in the car.
The only sedan sold w/ high-% of stick is the BMW 3-series, & the Mazda6 is more of a Beemer competitor than the new S40? Which means, despite lower price than the TSX, which is already about $5k less than the S40 2.4i similarly equipped, the Mazda6 competes w/ the 3-series.
At least the other sporty handling sedans like the Mazda3 or TSX cannot double the duty as a relaxing riding cruiser. & a lot of people including myself want both ride & handling.
Ride-comfort wise, I suspect the 325i w/ the long-spring base suspension still rides more like the C230K sedan than either the Mazda6 or the S40 non-sport.
Let's see, a good "decent-handling compact-luxury" comparison test would be "S40 T-5(non-sport) vs 325i(non-sport) vs C230K(sport is std) vs X-type 3.0(2.5 is too weak)sport vs Mazda6s". The non-sport Jag & Benz would be too squishy to compare.
A good "sport compact w/o bone-jarring shallow-ride" comparison test would be "S40 2.4i sport vs TSX vs Mazda3s".