Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Volvo S40

1181921232436

Comments

  • cmnottcmnott Member Posts: 200
    If it helps, I drove and while slightly rubbery, it had a real positive action to it. Overall, I'd give it an 8/10. Put it to you this way, it shouldn't be the reason why you do not buy the car.
  • carman123carman123 Member Posts: 71
    Did you drive a FWD or AWD version? If FWD, how was the torque steer? Also, how did the clutch engagement feel?
  • volvomaxvolvomax Member Posts: 5,238
    I think its the best manual Volvo has ever offered.

    Its not as good as the Miata or NSX gearboxes, but its not bad.

    The throws are short, a little rubbery maybe.

    Clutch takeup is good, much better than my S60R.
  • creakid1creakid1 Member Posts: 2,032
    "If FWD, how was the torque steer? Also, how did the clutch engagement feel?"

     

    My test drive of the FWD T5 6-sp in the Volvo's invitation event did not show any obvious torque steer. In other words, it shouldn't bother you.

     

    But even w/o turbo lag, the turbo's boost-build-up time still delays. So, during acceleration, by the time the boost really comes on, it's already around 3000 rpm, which is when I usually up shift to the next gear. If you want the claimed max-torque to be available @ 1500 rpm, then you have to lug the engine at that rpm & wait, such as when climbing a hill.
  • creakid1creakid1 Member Posts: 2,032
    So you might as well get the 5-sp auto than the 6-sp manual? Stupid turbo!

     

    "With all four wheels engaged, our test car hits 60 in 7.9 seconds, only a second slower than the manual S40 T5 we tested earlier."

     

    7.9 seconds? That's about as quick as the '05 Focus ST 2.3 5-sp manual.

     

    "The all-wheel-drive system also aids traction in dry cornering, yet overall induces less push than expected."

     

    Less push? You can enjoy less push simply by getting the light-weight FWD Focus ST w/ std SVT sway bars & shocks. Sorry, I sound so...'cause I don't need AWD in S California.

     

    "We're less happy with the somewhat slow and vague electro-hydraulic steering. It needs work."

     

    Might as well go back to the old school of Focus I ST w/ pure hydraulic & no subframe for max direct-feeling steering!

     

    "But overall the V50 is a great handling sport wagon that can also test driver skills, so we recommend the optional stability control."

     

    Is that why the Focus I ST & SVT w/o a vague steering are not available w/ stability control in America? You're gonna have to disable it in order to have fun drifting the controllable tail anyway.

     

    "The ride is European solid, but never harsh, and interior noise levels are low.

     

    EPA mileage estimates for the T5 AWD with automatic are 19 city/26 highway."

     

    W/ the regular fuel, the Focus ST manual can save enough gas $ to have a custom shop sound insulating the noise down to a decent level. & w/ the longer springs than the SVT, the ST can ride just fine, especially after I replace the 205/50 w/ 205/55 tires.

     

    http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2416.shtml
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Member Posts: 1,681
    You seem to be quite taken by the Focus.
  • creakid1creakid1 Member Posts: 2,032
    base on the narrow rear visibility alone! ;-) Even the rear-glass-width of the Focus I sedan is only barely tolerable for lane-change/passing visibility.
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    I remember when i could only afford a junky saturn, i had a chance to drive a friend's kick-butt vr6 jetta, and thereafter i spent a lot of time rationalizing ways in which my saturn was better/faster/etc.

     

    Eventually i decided that it made more sense to just save for a 3-series.

     

    Next: s40 t5 awd/a4 2.0TQ/2006 3-series

     

    waiting to try the last 2

     

    dave
  • creakid1creakid1 Member Posts: 2,032
    & even the VR6 Jetta sucks, eventhough it's still much better than a bumpy & noisy Saturn. Just see how p48 04/99 C&D described the VR6 Jetta 5-sp in the comparison test & ranked it dead last. I found its ride sometimes too lumpy & sometime too floaty. The steering feel at the limit is poor, & now VW has to switch it to the Focus-type rear suspension by hiring the Focus engineers to do it.

     

    First, it was the E46 3-series that lost the old E36's high level of steering feel & the very involving handling, even w/ the uncomfortable sport suspension. & I'm not too comfortable getting an used E36 due to the repair cost & the lack of DSC stability control on a RWD car discourages me to explore the handling limit in the wet, so therefore no fun!

     

    So I thought I might as well get the '05 updated $43k C320 Sport sedan, which I CAN afford, by the way. It turned out that the feeling, especially thru the steering, is even more insulated than the already so-so E46 Beemer. So I wasn't having much fun w/ this highly-capable but rather-boring-to-operate vehicle, but I considered buying it anyway 'cause the color -- white w/ blue glass over the grey interior -- is what I like, & modern cars rarely come w/ rear visibility this wide. Then I decided that I still want a stick & should order one instead. & then I hated the salesman 'cause he persuaded me to buy that automatic car & lied to me that the charcoal filter was already included as std feature. It wasn't for '05, & won't be available as an option for months, according to the brochure.

     

    Right after that test drive, I immediately tried out again the FWD S40 T5 w/o the uncomfortable sport suspension & found its weak-kneed front suspension performing poorly if I don't slow down over deep bumps such as speed bumps.

     

    That left me no choice but to get either the base RX-8 auto or the '05 Focus ST:

    creakid1, "Volvo S40" #998, 27 Nov 2004 2:31 pm

     

    The E46's clutch is tediously heavy & long travel, while the Focus's clutch is beautifully light! & as far as how good dynamically the Focus is comparing to...

     

    (p46-51, 11 June 2003 AUTOCAR)

    Group Test: Alfa 147 2.0 vs Audi A3 2.0 FSI vs BMW 318ti SE(w/ std sport suspension) vs Mercedes C180K S Coupe

     

    "Individually none is bad, but the general (in)competence level has shocked me because even the best car here doesn't come close to the basic dynamic standards set by the four-and-a-half-year-old Focus Focus. And for the money being asked that's criminal.

      But is that valid criticism? You bet it is."

     

    "How you rate the BMW Compact depends entirely on how highly crisp styling rates on your prestige-check list. To me (accepting, as we now must, that a Ford is dynamically superior to them all) it's right at the top of the list;..."

     

    The '05 Focus ST sedan, w/ 2.3 Mazda-developed 4-cyl & std SVT swaybars & shocks, is no ordinary American-spec Focus, & even the non-ST '05 Focus is so well honed & tuned now:

     

    durability05, "Ford Focus vs. Mazda3" #154, 14 Dec 2004 11:05 pm

    “…I bought a brand new 05 ZX4 automatic and

    this car is like comfortable sport clothes. Driving the big SUV's is like wearing a suit. My old commuter car the Honda Accord it replaced felt like ill fitting clothes. The 05 ZX4 is much improved over a 2000 Focus I owned 4 years ago, which was about average.”
  • RicksterRickster Member Posts: 40
    This is geting tiresome. If you didn't end up buying the S40, why are you still posting here?
  • volvomaxvolvomax Member Posts: 5,238
    Here's what I don't get.

    Anyone who can afford a bimmer or Benz or Volvo usually buys in the class.

    This is the first time in my almost 15 yrs experience in the car business where someone shopped in the luxury market and bought an econobox.

    I'm sure the Focus is a nice enough car, but better than a bimmer or benz?
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Member Posts: 1,681
    Hey...it's a FORD
  • creakid1creakid1 Member Posts: 2,032
    It's not a stupid American Ford, but an ingenious German-engineered one! I got offended when a senior-citizen old lady told me that my car is good 'cause she used to have a Ford...Uhhh!

     

    & there's almost no reason getting this new S40/V50 @ this price over the other Volvo's if it wasn't for the Focus II suspension & steering rack. Why not just get an S60 or last year's S40/V40?
  • creakid1creakid1 Member Posts: 2,032
    "Here's what I don't get.

    Anyone who can afford a bimmer or Benz or Volvo usually buys in the class.

    This is the first time in my almost 15 yrs experience in the car business where someone shopped in the luxury market and bought an econobox.

    I'm sure the Focus is a nice enough car, but better than a bimmer or benz?"

     

    It's such a "delicious toy", I swear! I know I know, no charcoal filter & no silent fwy cruising, but that's about it! It feels great speeding when cops don't even notice me w/ the blue-oval badge! The only thing I still envy from others is how the old Peugeot's & the C-class w/o sport suspension travel over speed bumps. But the Focus-suspension S40/V50 can't do that, either, & only the driving position leaves me "drooling". That's why I still constantly recommend people to consider the new S40/V50, especially the wagon people, who have to sacrifice the wide rear visibility anyway.

     

    By the way, my next "delicious toy" that still rides comfortably is the next LSD-equipped Miata w/ folding metal top & an RX-8-like suspension.
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    I was thinking of getting a porsche 911 turbo, until i realized the sun blocking tint on top of the window was 5% too transparent. So i stayed with my 10 year old v6 mustang.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Member Posts: 5,238
    Your not cross shopping though.

    Cross shopping is S40 vs TSX.Its Rolex vs Breitling.

    What your doing is comparing Walmart and Nordstroms.

    You can always make the argument that cheaper is better, since its cheaper.

    Again, I defy anyone to say w/ a straight face that the Focus is better than or equal to a benz, bimmer, Volvo, Audi, Saab, Acura, or even a Subaru. Its just cheaper.
  • creakid1creakid1 Member Posts: 2,032
    "Again, I defy anyone to say w/ a straight face that the Focus is better than or equal to a benz, bimmer, Volvo, Audi, Saab, Acura, or even a Subaru. Its just cheaper."

     
    Anyone?

     

    Again...

    creakid1, "Volvo S40" #1033, 28 Dec 2004 3:23 am

    (p46-51, 11 June 2003 AUTOCAR)

    Group Test: Alfa 147 2.0 vs Audi A3 2.0 FSI vs BMW 318ti SE(w/ std sport suspension) vs Mercedes C180K S Coupe

      

    "Individually none is bad, but the general (in)competence level has shocked me because even the best car here doesn't come close to the basic dynamic standards set by the four-and-a-half-year-old Focus Focus. And for the money being asked that's criminal.

      But is that valid criticism? You bet it is."

      

    "How you rate the BMW Compact depends entirely on how highly crisp styling rates on your prestige-check list. To me (accepting, as we now must, that a Ford is dynamically superior to them all) it's right at the top of the list;..."

     

    So, dynamically, the Focus does trump them all, unless, of course, you don't care about the dynamics, especially in crowded traffic jams.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Okay, creakid1, we get the idea about your preferences and your choice - let's let this discussion get back on track. Enjoy your new ride.
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    Group Test: Alfa 147 2.0 vs Audi A3 2.0 FSI vs BMW 318ti SE(w/ std sport suspension) vs Mercedes C180K S Coupe

     

    But none of these vehicles are available in the US and we don't know if any of them, including the Euro market Focus referenced, are even set up the same as the NA versions.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Member Posts: 5,238
    More importantly NONE of them are or would be in the $25-30,000 price range. NONE of them would win against their larger siblings.

    Enjoy your focus.
  • jcabqjcabq Member Posts: 2
    My wife and are seriously looking at both the Audi A4 1.8T Quattro and the Volvo S40 T5 AWD. We both agree that the Volvo is a lot more fun to drive, but the Audi is more luxurious and spacious.

     

    At this point we need some input/feelings with regards to residual value and long-term reliability for these two cars. Considering the S40 is redesigned, my question may be hard to address. However, if I am not mistaken the 5 cylinder engine has been used by Volvo for some time - although I do not know if the S40's engine compares to past Volvo models.

     

    We are also concerned that a 2005 A4 might be somewhat obsolete with the introduction of the 2006 A4, considering the improved engine.

     

    Any suggestion/input would be greatly appreciated.
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    I'm curious about your fun-to-drive impressions. Was this as a result of the extra power, or did you feel the t5 handles more nimbly, as well?

     

    dave
  • jcabqjcabq Member Posts: 2
    Well, first off I have to provide the caveat that I like cars, but am not an expert by any means. Consequently I may use inappropriate terminology, but I will try my best to answer your question.

     

    The extra power contributes greatly to my impression. The A4 performed well in first and second, about that same as the T5, but suffered greatly thereafter. The additional torque available in the S40 is noticeable, even during city driving.

     

    The S40 felt more like a Rally car than a luxury car. The handling of the A4 was impressive but a little "softer" than the S40. The A4 struggled a little with a high speed turn (probably at a higher speed than recommended) while the S40 had very little body roll or difficulty. The predictable downside is a somewhat "stiffer" ride in the S40.
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    Hey, thanks, that's really informative!

     

    I'm probably not buying for a while yet, so i'm sure all the cars i'm lookin at will be tweaked some.

     

    The s40, even with the sport package, isn't as sporty as i like, but i still might bite because of its other aspects. It, at least, knocks the 9-3 off the list for me, as it has some advanatages over the 9-3 and i don't really see where the 9-3 compensates.

     

    dave
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I think C & D had listed the trunk space for the S40 @ 16 cubic feet. Is it that big? For such a small car? By comparison, the trunk for the Camry is 17 cu ft, and the Accord, I believe, is only about 13.5.
  • lev_berkovichlev_berkovich Member Posts: 858
    Volvo lists the cargo capacity at 12.6 cu.ft with the second seat up and 31.5 cu.ft with the second seat folded.

     

    Very respectful, compare to Honda Accord.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I was building an S40 T5 AWD on the Volvocanada site, and, apparently, you can't get the automatic without buying the sunroof, which costs an additional $1500 on top of the $1500 for the auto! Can anyone verify if that is true? If it is, I think that is a ripoff. So, if I don't want a stupid sunroof, I'm essentially paying $3000 for an automatic transmission. The S40 (other than the base model) is already pretty pricey. So if they group options like that, I think they will price the car beyond what many people can/will pay. They are in BMW 3-series territory price-wise.
  • guyfguyf Member Posts: 456
    I think you are right Gordon, the sunroof is a "mandatory" option with the automatic.

     

    I too found the S40 too expensive for what it is. I was looking for one last fall but ended up leasing a very nice S60 2.5T fully loaded for a little under $500. per month before taxes. This is a 2004 and Volvo was doing a fire sale in September.

     

    Guy
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    You're right. If you want AWD, and you include a couple of option packages on the S40, then price-wise, you'd be butting up against the S60 and XC70, 2 models that are actually more suitable for family duty due to their bigger size.

     

    It's almost impossible to find a semi-upscale, reasonably-sized, and reasonably well-equipped AWD vehicle for under $40K in Canada. I even looked at the new Outback. That goes up to about $45K for the top-of-the-line. And really, other than the famous Subaru AWD system, you're not getting a heck of a lot of car for that kind of money. They don't even give you memory feature for the driver's seat. I mean c'mon, Subaru, $45K is not pocket change!
  • guyfguyf Member Posts: 456
    Do you really want AWD? The S60 with traction control and the Gislaved NordFrost3 tires will go anywhere it's ground clearance will allow it. It its a very easy to control, fun to drive car in the snow.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    The reason I want AWD is that I'm lazy and cheap (mostly lazy) about getting snow tires. You need 4 snow tires. First, it's a pain to buy, and store 4 extra tires with garage space already limited. If you want to change the tires yourself, it's 2 full changes per year, plus you then would have to shell out for 4 rims. If you go to a gas station to have them changed, try lugging 4 tires in the trunk of your car! Also, I don't like the road feel of snow tires, so I don't want to have to drive on them if there is no snow.
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    I'm a big believer in snow tires. AWD only helps you get moving. Snow tires help you turn and stop. Getting moving is not generally a safety issue. Turning and stopping is.

     

    My car now is RWD but i have snows and i'm better off than AWD cars with all-seasons.

     

    dave
  • lev_berkovichlev_berkovich Member Posts: 858
    True,

    Let's not forget that AWD or stability and traction control just helping to MANAGE the existing traction.

    Snow tires ADD the traction.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    With all due respect, guys, I'm not sure I can agree 100%. If I had to put money on it, I would still be inclined to bet on a good AWD system over a RWD with snows in terms of traction. I've seen some pretty fancy high-end RWD cars with snow tires spinning hopelessly in the snow. The key would be a good AWD system. something like the CR-V's system would not be any better than a RWD or FWD with snows. But a Subaru or Audi's Quattro....different story.

     

    I think both snow tires and AWD add traction, just in different ways.
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    "I had to put money on it, I would still be inclined to bet on a good AWD system over a RWD with snows in terms of traction."

     

    That *might* be true *only* for acceleration.

     

    And that only matters is you care about accelerating quickly away from stoplights, and not about stopping or turning to avoid an accident.

     

    dave
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    Your point about stopping and turning is very valid. But I'm more concern with not getting stuck, rather than rapid acceleration. With or without AWD, I actually drive very conservatively whenever the road surface is slick (a function of age!), so usually stopping and turning are not really an issue.
  • guyfguyf Member Posts: 456
    My personal experience tends to demostrate the opposite. My wife's S60 with 4 winter tires is better, safer on snow than my XC90 on Michelin 4 seasons.

     

    Now with 4 winter tires on the XC it's a different story.

     

    Nokian makes a 4 seasons thats is reported to be very good on snow, maybe that's what you're looking for?
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    "...is better, safer on snow than my XC90..."

     

    You mean better in turning & stopping, or better in accelerating?

     

    And yes, when I switch out of the OEM tires, I will definitely look for all-seasons with strong snow performance. I'll check out the Nokian. Thanks for the tip. Never heard much of that brand before though. Do they also make cell phones? :)
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    There is that--but i have never gotten stuck in my RWD with snows. However, you may well drive in worse conditions than i do in chicago.

     

    My main reason for being interested in AWD is i just don't like how FWD feels, and AWD can feel more like RWD.

     

    dave
  • lev_berkovichlev_berkovich Member Posts: 858
    Do not count on it with Volvo. Under the normal conditions the Haldex AWD is mostly FWD (which is a good thing IMHO).

     

    I strongly believe that with the exception of the street racing FWD is much more practical and safe for the "normal" sedan.
  • nedc2nedc2 Member Posts: 192
    Nokia spun off its rubber products division ages ago, at one time they even made rubber pac boots, good for Finnish winters --1980s? maybe. Now Nokian tires is spinning off its non automotive products, bicycle tires, etc.. I just hope hope they'll be offering tires in the size I need by next winter.
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    Yes, i know the s40 is haldex, which is quite unfortunate to me. I personally think FWD as wrong-wheel-drive. Even when you're not street racing, FWD intrudes in a lot of areas of the driving experience, IMHO. I quite like the s40 otherwise, though, so it's still on my list.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    How similar are these vehicles? I know that they are based on the same "platform" (whatever that really means).
  • lev_berkovichlev_berkovich Member Posts: 858
    What it means is that the sheet metal parts for the floor, some of the body and attachment points for the suspension are the same.

     

    Mazda and S40 have different suspension, engine, transmission, active and passive safety devices, seats, interior, exterior body panels, lights, etc. (if that is not enough).

     

    S40 also have some additional reinforcement even in the part of the body which is common for all three (Mazda 3, Volvo S40 and new Ford Focus) vehicles.

     

    Mazda is sportier, while S40 is much safer and much more refined.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Thanks for the information. That helps, I was wondering if there were more than cosmetic differences. I did know about the obvious differences, like the engines.

     

    Safety is definitely an issue for us, particularly since these cars are toward the smaller end of the spectrum.
  • billherrmannbillherrmann Member Posts: 108
    Good stuff. I'm still trying to decide between Mazda3s and S40.
  • tranmitranmi Member Posts: 12
    Why are you still thinking ??? For the money, get the Mazda3 (S40 2.4i is noisy and slow) but for the power go with the S40 T5. I got my 05 S40 T5 last July and still happy with it.
  • creakid1creakid1 Member Posts: 2,032
    S40 lets you choose, but charges more for the sport suspension.

     

    If you like to be pampered for under $20k, then take a newspaper-special S40 stick w/ no option & enjoy the comfort of the slow-movement ride & the chair-high driving position (especially the door-armrest height) w/ good thigh support.
  • billherrmannbillherrmann Member Posts: 108
    Since 2000 I have owned IS300, BMW 330xi, & "04 Acura TL[270 hp]. No way is 2.4 'slow'!

    That being said, I did enjoy the added punch that is provided by the T5 turbo. I'm more than a little bit concerned by the turbo lag when driving in heavy traffic. Will I get used to it & be able to adjust???? Any replies from T5 guys will be appreciated. Bill from NJ
This discussion has been closed.