Ask the Car People.SM


Volvo S40

1807 messages,  Last post on Jul 01, 2011 at 7:51 AM

You are in the Volvo S40 Forum.

What is this discussion about? Volvo S40, Sedan



Messages Page 106 of 181

#1047 of 1807 2005 Audi A4 vs. Volvo S40 by jcabq

Jan 10, 2005 (12:13 pm)

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.

#1048 of 1807 Fun-to-drive by dhanley

Jan 10, 2005 (3:32 pm)

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

#1049 of 1807 Re: Fun-to-drive [dhanley] by jcabq

Jan 10, 2005 (3:53 pm)

Replying to: dhanley (Jan 10, 2005 3:32 pm)
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.

#1050 of 1807 Re: Fun-to-drive [jcabq] by dhanley

Jan 10, 2005 (7:53 pm)

Replying to: jcabq (Jan 10, 2005 3:53 pm)
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

#1051 of 1807 Trunk capacity by bodble2

Jan 11, 2005 (2:25 pm)

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.

#1052 of 1807 Re: Trunk capacity [bodble2] by lev_berkovich

Jan 11, 2005 (3:52 pm)

Replying to: bodble2 (Jan 11, 2005 2:25 pm)
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.

#1053 of 1807 S40 in Canada by bodble2

Jan 13, 2005 (1:45 pm)

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.

#1054 of 1807 Re: S40 in Canada [bodble2] by guyf

Jan 13, 2005 (3:28 pm)

Replying to: bodble2 (Jan 13, 2005 1:45 pm)
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

#1055 of 1807 Re: S40 in Canada [guyf] by bodble2

Jan 13, 2005 (6:15 pm)

Replying to: guyf (Jan 13, 2005 3:28 pm)
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!

#1056 of 1807 Re: S40 in Canada [bodble2] by guyf

Jan 13, 2005 (7:07 pm)

Replying to: bodble2 (Jan 13, 2005 6:15 pm)
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.

Messages Page 106 of 181

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement