By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
That said, my mother found my OB XT seats extremely uncomfortable because she has issues with her hips...the narrow seat and the stiff lateral supports put pressure on sensitive points. Certainly, some sort of cushion could resolve that issue.
Cheers.
Jay
So it depends on your perspective.
-juice
steel in the unibody
suspension bits
interiors
on so on.
You make it sound like its just badge engineering.
All I'm saying is we should not assume a Volvo is necessarily safer just because of the name. The S40 does only average in IIHS side impacts. As you know Subaru scores are mixed (excellent in ANCAP but marginal by IIHS).
Let's evaluate cars based on their scores, not the label on the hood.
-juice
The last S40 was a rebadged Mitusbishi. This one is a shared platform Focus/Mazda 3, not that they are bad cars (but they can be had at 1/2 the price)
I think the Mazda 3 is a nice car for the price. I think $33k for a V50 is a little steep.
To be fair though, I think $33k for a rebadged WRX (9-2X) is a little steep too! ;-)
tom
It seems like in this day and age, platform sharing is just an economic reality. If Volvo had built the V50/S40 from scratch (even if they could afford too, which is doubtful), the car would be much more expensive than it is. That being the case, which is the lesser evil?
Bob
S40,v50 are smaller cars than Legacy. They compare better to Impreza.
Pricewise Volvos are more expensive so you end up comparing "wrong" cars.
Krzys
Perhaps this means that the Mazda3 and Euro Focus (not the US Focus) are better vehicles than their competitors - you're assuming the Volvo is a lesser vehicle instead of the others being better vehicles because Volvo was involved with the design.
IIHS shows both the S40 and Legacy good in the frontal offset but the side impact is acceptable (not average) for the S40 but marginal for the Legacy.
You're right - you can't just assume the Volvo is safer but your first comment was pretty condescending - basically the Volvo isn't any better than a Focus in any way.
It's all semantics anyway - buy and drive what you like. If one feels the Volvo or BMW or Lexus name/warranty/reputation/service/image is worth the extra bucks - let them spend it. It's their money.
Legacy is bigger, so it's a little easier to accept the price. Call it a small mid-size or a roomy compact, it's roomier either way.
I think the comment that Volvo is automatically safer than Subaru is definitely condescending. Perhaps that's what put me on the defensive in the first place.
-juice
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
There is a sun sensor on top of the dash (passenger side) which should be influencing the temp settings. During the day, it is more likely to run cooler if it perceives sunlight hitting that part of the car. At night, it would use less cooling since it does not have to compete with solar heating. But regardless, it should be making internal adjustments to keep the temperature you set.
I wonder if your sun sensor is flakey?? You might be able to shine a flashlight on it at night to see if the system varies fan speed or another setting. Sounds like a good experiment for me to try.
Craig
Who said that - I didn't read that anywhere.
Yes the Volvo is up there in price but it's not astronomical. The base V50 T5 AWD is priced at about $29K. Optioned with premuium pack, climate package and 17" wheels you get to a little over $34K. The Legacy GT wagon is just over $30K. Is $4K worth it for the name, the reputation (justified or not), longer warranty, and included maintenance? Only the buyer can answer that question.
Maybe value should be Subaru's message - kind of like Acura when compared to the other premuim brands.
I'm on a business trip now and the car I'm renting, a Lincoln Towncar (not my choice), has auto climate control. I still do change the temperature up and down several degrees depending on outside temperatures too.
An easier experiment with the sun sensor is to cover it when there is direct sun hitting the dash and see if the fan speed go down (it should).
Ken
Seasts are subjective but here is my opinion. What Volvo model are you considering? The reason why I ask is that not all Volvo models use the same seats. I absolutely love the XC 70 seats (I love hard seats) and they are the most confortable of all the vehicles I have ever sat in. However, S60 seats are different from the XC70 (a bit softer and cushier) and I prefer my 05 GT wagon's seats to the S60 (again because I like firmer seats). For me, the firmer the seats, the more comfortable. I will say; however, that the lumbar support of both Volvos that I have sat in is superior to the 05 Legacy GT but at the same time I have found a comfortable setting w/ my Subie. Bottom line: comfortable seats are subjective and you will have to try each vehicle yourself.
Leo
You forgot that the Legacy GT offers much more performance than the V50.
It's also much better looking! ;-)
tom
2005 OB 2.5 Ltd. auto with 1200 miles averaging 20.5 mpg since new with mostly suburban driving using normal transmission mode almost all the time.
As far as the seats are concerned...they are too hard and small for me. The steering wheel is too far away and the driver's footwell space is compromised. After 20 minutes driving, I am very uncomfortable. I am 5'11" and 175 lbs. I did not notice these things during the test drive, but shortly after buying it. I still have not adjusted to this car.
It is a shame because it is for the most part, an excellent vehicle.
Krzys
PS There is FWD and AWD T5, soon there will be manual joining auto (is manual available yet?)
PS2 I was surprised that both Legacy and S40/V50 are compact, I guess Impreza is a compact too.
2005 OB 2.5 Ltd. auto with 1200 miles averaging 20.5 mpg since new with mostly suburban driving using normal transmission mode almost all the time.
As far as the seats are concerned...they are too hard and small for me. The steering wheel is too far away and the driver's footwell space is compromised. After 20 minutes driving, I am very uncomfortable. I am 5'11" and 175 lbs. I did not notice these things during the test drive, but shortly after buying it. I still have not adjusted to this car.
It is a shame because it is for the most part, an excellent vehicle.
The GT is almost a foot longer than the volvo, and has a few more Cubic ft of interior volume, just not enough to push it into the next size class (which are categorized by interior volume)
And the GT is definitely better looking than the T5! ;-)
But hey, if you want to argue about it, start a Legacy GT vs Volvo S40/V50 thread. ;-) This is Subie territory!
tom
PS. The manual S40 should be available now (I think it was supposed to come out over the summer).
PPS. PS2 is a video game console. ;-)
AWD T5 should be quicker than FWD T5 but slower.
I think that GT provides more performance than T5 but not "much more performance".
Krzys
The thing is, we are comparing Apples and Oranges. While the Legacy has a full time AWD system, the Volvo has a part time system. So they will behave differently as far as launches go anyway. I thinkt he safe thing is to focus on weight. The Legacy acceleration numbers already take into account the weight of AWD, the T5 numbers do not.
Craig
I am enjoying this car very much. As to the seats, they are a little firm for our bodies. So we 're getting a couple of tempurpedic seat cushions that we believe should work. But this is a very subjective subject; another person may not have any problems at all. Snowbird
Mom's 3 sons bought her a new car recently, so I think she's doing just fine. ;-)
I think $34k is too much for a wagon that is that compact. You're too far into V70 territory at that point. Most people would give up some performance to get the more substantial V70.
Actually, size-wise, the V50 T5 is closest to the Forester XT. Then the price difference seems enormous.
-juice
Have to disagree about the looks.. I'd take the Volvo over the Subie on that account..
And the acceleration? In real-world driving, most people will feel that anything under 8.0 0-60 is blazingly fast.. Only the magazine readers really care about that...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
The problem with the V70 is that you have to either get a base model (160 hp) or a V70R to get a manual transmission. Also the V50 is targeting a different demographic - Volvo is hoping for younger buyers with the V50. The V70 screams out suburban mom/dad.
As for looks, I like both although I like the Volvo more. It's subjective.
Good point - in the real world hyper drive isn't needed. It's fun though!!
I guess the thing is you can get a Mazda3 with Nav, even. The 2.3l in that lighter car is fine, it's really only missing AWD. From that perspective there's your value on that platform.
I think both are handsome, the Volvo and the Subie. The S40 looks better than the V50, but even the wagon looks decent. The Legacy looks slightly better to me, but like kyfdx I'd take either one.
The V70 screams out suburban mom/dad
I resemble that remark!
-juice
As do I!!
I really like the Mazda 3 hatch also.. Even with NAV, it tops out around $23K..
Don't get me wrong.. More power is almost always better.. but, most shoppers don't even know if they have RWD or FWD.. A second more or less to 60 MPH won't even enter into their decision..
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I love AWD, but not THAT much!
-juice
Mazda's interior is more of a sporty cockpit and they didn't try too hard. It's not premium but it looks more consistent. They got it right, IMO, I actually prefer it over the Volvo.
-juice
Thanks for the detailed reply. To get even more detailed: I am aware that the turbo engine makes a lot more HP than the base engine (I've driven both. Wow!). But the reason for my MPG question is this: no matter what the rated hp is, at any given steady road speed (say, 75 mph), either the base engine or the turbo makes exactly the same power, i.e., just enough to overcome the friction and air drag to push the car at that speed. That's about 15-20 hp at 75 mph. The turbo should have very little influence in that situation, so the fuel consumption difference should be just due to different compression ratio and small things like exhaust restriction due to the turbo, etc.
So given the 5 mpg difference between the 2.5i and the GT, I guessed that the EPA test routine includes some brisk acceleration that actually invokes the turbo boost, even in the highway numbers.
Anyway, the answer I am seeing from a couple of you appears to be that the GT actually gets 26-28 mpg in steady highway cruising, or 2-3 mpg less than the i. That makes better sense to me than 5 mpg difference. If that bears out with others' experience, there may be a GT in my future.
Though I'm still undecided because the regular engine with the 5MT is no slouch either. Gotta get off the fence by this Spring!
FWIW, my present drive is a 2001 Honda Accord V6 sedan. 200hp, 4-speed auto. The 2.5i Legacy with 168hp and 5MT "feels" just about as quick as the Honda, though I couldn't really push the Subie very hard, not wanting to run a brand-new car above 4500 rpm for even a few seconds. 0-60 time is not releveant to me at all; highway passing ability is, though. The Honda's weakness there is that a WOT push at 65mph gets a downshift to third gear and 3600rpm, just below the VTEC kick-in at 4000. Not much power until 70-75 mph, and by then it's too late. The 5-speed in the Subie gets the engine on top of the torque curve a lot sooner, so passing felt okay even with the base engine.
Thanks!
Stanton
Look at it another way -- say both engines turn 2500 rpm at a constant speed on the highway (governed by direct gearing). The turbo motor has to burn more gas to spin at 2500 rpm than the base motor. Again, you are paying for the excess capacity of the motor.
If it was an airplane, you could throttle back and have the engines only generate enough thrust to overcome drag, and maintain the cruise speed. not so with cars, because of the way HP and torque is tied to RPM and the way RPM is directly tied to road speed.
Chrysler's and Honda's variable displacement systems are examples of getting around this issue.
Craig
-juice
I have a hard time understanding your science. I'm sure you realize that no Subaru shuts down any cylinders, but what about the turbo baggage you speak of?
At cruise state, when the throttle is not open very far, the turbo's waste gate is wide open, so there is no significant back pressure. The extra weight for the turbo is minimal. The more complex valve train adds a little more friction, but this should be offset by the efficiency offered by the variable valve timing.
The only factors that should come into play are the final drive ratio, lower compression of the turbo motor and possibly a richer fuel mixture programmed into the ECM.
The last experience I had with a turbo was with a 90 Plymouth Laser Turbo (Mitsu Eclipse).
That car had the exact same EPA ratings for the turbo and the non-turbo model. I averaged over 25 MPG with the turbo FWD on mid-grade fuel.
I look forward to your reply.
Jim
For Subaru to take their average family sedan and wagon and drop a motor in it so it blasts to 60mph in under 6 seconds, That's a statement. This is not a BMW, MB, or Audi (or even Volvo), although they'd like to get there.
In real world driving, do you really need to get to 60 in under 10 seconds? No. Is it more fun, definitely. Is 5.7 sec blazingly fast? Only if you're used to driving camrys (or maybe Volvo 240s?). ;-)
It's ok if you like the Volvo over the Subie, I happen to like the aggressive, low, wide, athletic stance, you like the short stubby tall fat look. ;-) (Before you jump all over me, I'm j/k! I actually like the volvos too, and thought about getting one)
tom
I don't think I do.. I also don't think there are millions and millions like us... More like tens of thousands.. Ask any car salesperson..
I don't really like the Volvo all that much. I just think it looks better than the Subie.. and aggressive, low, wide and athletic? Are you squinting?.. ;-)
Seriously.. ask any male Subaru Legacy GT owner on this board if his spouse knows the horsepower rating or 0-60 time of his car.
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
My GT Ltd is turning in the low 3Ks while cruising at about 70mph. At this point the turbo is spooled up and while not on full boost, it's definitely adding some. I know because there is no turbo lag when cruising (100mph comes up real fast). I don't think the power is purely from the engine without the turbo. And if it went from no pressure (with the waste gate open) to adding pressure, I would think there would be some lag.
So it's burning more fuel, hence lower mpg (but not a lot less). Could they make it more efficient? Sure, at the expense of performance. But it's a gran touring car, it should cruise and accelerate quickly and effortlessly, which means boost, available promptly anytime, which means more gas.
Turbo lag is the biggest complaint of these cars, and we don't want Subaru to make that worse in the name of mileage, do we?
In fact, after driving my car for 4 months, I'd like a turbo H6. More low end torque please? ;-)
tom
Let's face it, americans like power (this is not a political statement!) ;-). If we could afford it, who wouldn't want a 500 hp car? In fact, over the past ten years cars have been getting more powerful and faster. Now you can spend $30K and get a sub 5 sec/ 13 sec car? Who would've thought? Heck, most true large luxury sedans today will do 60 in under 6 seconds. That's pretty fast, and that's a lot of power. And that's because americans want them, and perceive they need that extra second faster to 60.
BTW, one of the reasons I bought my GT is because my wife demands we get powerful cars (hence, 240hp minivan), and she knows how fast my car is. And likes it! ;-)
Squinting? Maybe I need my vision checked. ;-)
tom
I guess one can think of a turbo as a variable displacement engine as well. In this case, it's more variable mass rather than just volume.
Ken
I think there is a *LOT* of debate about mileage and fuel costs in general. Many people ask if premium fuel is really required, and often inquire about what mileage people are getting.
I think the thing is Subaru's roots are showing, not necessarily the most fuel efficient cars on the planet, but the most efficient 4WD/AWD wagons are almost an expectation the old timers have.
What happens is they are forced into the base engine, and might feel like they are missing out on all the fun.
There is a big, big difference between the fuel efficiency of a 2.5i wagon (23/30) vs. a GT (19/25). Plus factor in the regular vs. premium fuel.
The H6 is too costly so let's leave that one out for now.
I would like to see a 3rd engine option. It could either be a base N/A 2.5l with AVCS and maybe 180-190hp, or a light pressure turbo tuned like the Baja at 210hp.
Whichever one of those engine they could tune for better fuel efficiency.
What do people think of the idea?
Is that too many engines for one car? Should they just give the base engine a bump in power and forget it?
-juice