Last post on Jul 01, 2011 at 6:51 AM
You are in the Volvo S40
What is this discussion about?
Volvo S40, Sedan
#1018 of 1807 Re: To me [calhon]
Dec 13, 2004 (7:52 pm)
"I'll take your word for it that Volvo did all the structural work for the PLATFORM, but I have a hard time believing that Volvo designed the entire upper body structure and subframe assemblies of either the New Focus or the Mazda3. As far as I know, the Ford division, Mazda and Volvo had and have a lot of flexibility individually w.r.t. the specifications of the main body structural elements, ancilliary structural elements and subframe assemblies implemented in any vehicle they build on the platform. That's what a platform is all about - so that even vehicles of different types and sizes can be accomodated."
Yes, that's what a platform is USUALLY all about, & it's most likely true in the case of Ford Five Hundred/Freestyle riding on the Volvo S80/V70/S60 platform. But the C-1 project is a team work of Ford, Mazda & Volvo. Ford designs the steering & suspension, Mazda develops the the 4-cyl drivetrain(including the S40/V50 1.8), & Volvo is responsible for ALL of the passive safety including the structure for both the platform & the WHOLE safety cage. It's just that Volvo kept some trade secret to themselves so that the Ford & Mazda do not get to use the "4 different steel firmness" or the "additional engine-bay clearance" that can outperform the S60 in frontal crash safety.
"Finally, you suggest that the S40's safety cage is not as good as the Accord's or Acura TL for side impacts. The IIHS side impact Structure/Safety Cage rating of the Accord is "Marginal", while the S40 and TL are rated "Acceptable". However, the S40's intrusion measures are actually slightly better than the TL's."
The recent "T-boned-by-SUV" crash test only applies to cars w/ side curtain airbags. It's been discussed here earlier:
creakid1, "Volvo S40" #915, 10 Oct 2004 3:24 pm
Only the Saab 9-3, TL(Accord?), ES330(Camry?) & Galant scored "Good".
While the new S40 scored "acceptable".
"The 2004 Saab 9-3, 2004 Acura TL, 2004 Lexus ES 330, and 2005 Mitsubishi Galant are rated good for side impact protection. The 2004 Saab 9-5, 2005 Mercedes C class, and 2005 Volvo S40 earned acceptable ratings. The 2004 Jaguar X-Type is rated marginal."
My personal opinion about safety has a lot to do w/ active safety, so after driving in the rain, I was very impressed by the fact that the S40/V50 is the only C-1 car sold in America equipped w/ the optional DSTC -- the "legendary Focus ESP" electronic stability program that hardly intrudes into your performance-handling habit, so you are unlikely to deactivate it.
In my most recent Volvo test drive, I was feeling like a king sitting comfortably in the throne-like driving position of the S40 T-5 w/ std suspension. But as soon as I found out that the narrow rear visibility made my lane-change-to-the-right clumsy, I thought, "What the xxxx, I can't stand its inability to avoid accidents!" Too bad the similar-structure Mazda3 is nearly as bad. So I decided to get an old-design '05 Focus I ST, which has the most steering feel & has a fun-to-drift controllable oversteer built in. Too bad the ESP(AdvanceTrak) was discontinued after '03 in America.
#1021 of 1807 Re: It wasn't the Volvo brother that got the best pick? [creakid1]
Dec 19, 2004 (9:44 am)
That's great! The S40 earned the same distinction, i.e., "Best Pick" frontal, some time ago. It has the best frontal crash test scores of the Midsize Moderately Priced Cars tested by the IIHS.
#1022 of 1807 S40 T5 6-Speed Manual...
Dec 21, 2004 (1:55 pm)
I'm considering buying the S60 T5 AWD with the 6-Speed manual transmission.
But I've had mixed reviews on this.. the firs thing i see is complaints about the gearbox: Too rubbery, linkage between 4&5&6 is poor.. etc..
Does anyone own this car? Can anyone offer any insight?
#1023 of 1807 Re: S40 T5 6-Speed Manual... [derek3927]
Dec 21, 2004 (2:14 pm)
I've only driven the T5 auto, which I l-o-v-e, love.
How can anyone tell you if a shifter feels good? Go drive it yourself!
#1024 of 1807 Re: S40 T5 6-Speed Manual... [derek3927]
Dec 23, 2004 (8:32 am)
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.
#1025 of 1807 Re: S40 T5 6-Speed Manual... [cmnott]
Dec 23, 2004 (8:50 am)
Did you drive a FWD or AWD version? If FWD, how was the torque steer? Also, how did the clutch engagement feel?
#1026 of 1807 Re: S40 T5 6-Speed Manual... [derek3927]
Dec 23, 2004 (9:03 am)
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.
#1027 of 1807 Re: S40 T5 6-Speed Manual... [carman123]
Dec 23, 2004 (11:42 pm)
"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.