Ask the Car People.SM


New S40/V50 - READ ONLY

1117 messages,  Last post on Jul 19, 2004 at 11:10 AM

You are in the Future Vehicles - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Future Vehicles Host for Directions! discussion.

What is this discussion about? Volvo S40, Volvo V50, Sedan

Messages Page 78 of 112

#768 of 1117 Should I buy a New Volvo ??? own a 1984 by knickgnat

Apr 15, 2004 (12:54 pm)

I own a 1984 volvo GL with 79,000 miles on it. Until the last three years, it has been trouble free - never uses oil. The last smog check required 6 tries and $3000 to repair. It passed the smog check this year but is in the shop for a $700 repair bill. Everyone says that the car can go another 100 thousand miles - but my question is - the air doesn't work - intermittent electrical problems last three years - how do you know when it's time to buy a new volvo - one dealer told me average life is 18 1/2 years....and because I don't have a lot of mileage on it - it's subject to more rust, etc. I can't say I would feel safe taking the car on a long trip - that may just be in my head.
 
I'm 58 now - so I have to look at long term planning - does anyone have any suggestions on how to make a decision. I am looking at the new S40.2005 as a replacement.
 
Thanks for any info....Michelle

#769 of 1117 Michelle by jrct9454

Apr 15, 2004 (2:30 pm)

You can make any car last as long as you want, simply by pouring money into it. Why you would want to do that with a 20 year old Volvo, assuming you can afford something between $25k and $30k, is an open question. Predicting what will break next in a 20year-old car, and how much it will cost, seems like asking too much. It is almost always less expensive to keep repairing an old car than to start the depreciation stream on a new one...but after you've spent the money, will you still have the confidence to actually drive the car where you want to go?
 
Safety and utility have come a very long way since your GL was new. You don't have to buy a Volvo to get both. The number of good choices is almost endless - pick up a copy of the April issue of Consumer Reports, which is currently on the newsstands, and read it from cover to cover, carefully. You will see dozens of choices that are going to be more comfortable, reliable, safe, and enjoyable than the car you are currently driving. You can almost close your eyes and point in the family sedan category that is characterized by the Accord, Camry, Mazda6, etc. If you must have a complete airbag package, your choices are more limited, but CU spells out what your choices are there, too.
 
The point is that IF you can afford an S40, then you have a wide variety of choices, any one of which is going to seem like paradise compared with an '84 GL. If you can't, there are a number of new cars priced $10k less that will still be a huge improvement over every aspect of the car you're in now. If you can afford $2000-$4000 a year in initial depreciation [for the first few years], you're better off buying new. Otherwise look for a good certified used car - CU can help you make a choice there, as well.

#770 of 1117 Play safe -- get a Japanese for long-term relationship by creakid1

Apr 15, 2004 (2:50 pm)

but if you must have that nice comfy chair only Volvo provides... Cross your fingers. The old 200-series 4-cylinder GL was a proven design evolved from the '60's.
 
If you don't mind getting a used '98 Lexus LS400 w/ reasonably small turning circle not much larger than your old Volvo... It's also a reliable car that pampers you.
 
But then a brand-new 4-cyl Accord assembled in Japan is very well built, reasonably comfortable & easy to drive.
 
To slow down the engine wear by several folds, after the first 10k miles, start using Prolong oil additive every time with the 0W-40 Mobil-1 synthetic oil. Synthetic oils are also good for those of you who drive too few miles per year.
 
A worn engine floods deposit on the catalytic converter to fail the smog-test even worse! Then frequent replacement of the catalytic converter also costs $.
 
Also use the Prolong transmission additive for the transmission to last.
 
If the car still doesn't last a very very long time, then it's a poorly engineered car.

#771 of 1117 The V50's cousin MX-Flexa(Mazda4) is not a van by creakid1

Apr 15, 2004 (4:02 pm)

"MX-Flexa has good packaging but styling only a mother could love. I swear I think the MPV is more sexy."
 
A van is a like a bus w/ high floor. Ever wonder why the '05 Dodge mini van's seats can disappear into the floor? Even some of today's rear-engine city buses don't have high floor like our old school bus, since there's no drive shaft running from the front.
 
Even the new Civic provides a low FLAT floor. So as long as the vehicle is FWD, there's no excuse raising the floor height & thus the center of gravity to turn the car into an SUV-like loser! Even w/ the 3-point-star badge, the A-class Mercedes compact couldn't get away from tipping over when avoiding a moose. Why? 'cause it's got floor high enough to store batteries underneath. Mercedes than had to add ESP plus cutting down the body roll by stiffen the suspension & ruined the ride comfort. This car never made it to the U.S. shore, but the next A-class w/ lower center-of-gravity might.
 
Lately, I discovered that the much more expensive new RX330 SUV cannot absorb the speed bumps as well as the C230 sedan!
 
This Mazda4's folded seats already cleared the bottom of the rear-hatch opening. So it's really a wagon, not a van. Remember the '76 Olds/Buick full-size wagon w/ all 3 rows of seats facing forward?

#772 of 1117 Check out the mpg! So turbo is "free power" eh by creakid1

Apr 15, 2004 (4:49 pm)

http://www.pbs.org/mpt/motorweek/search.shtml
click "2004 Mazda3" under "Recent Road Tests"
 
With only 5 gears:
“2004 Mazda3
 
 Engine 2.3-liter twin-cam 4-cylinder
 
 Horsepower 160
 
 Torque 150 lb feet
 
 0-60 mph 7.7 seconds
 
 1/4 mile 16.1 seconds 90 mph
 
 60-0 mph 118 feet
 
 EPA Mileage 25 mpg city
32 mpg highway
 
 MotorWeek's
mileage loop 27 mpg
mixed city/highway”
 
“The Mazda3's front MacPherson strut/rear multi-link suspension was developed by Ford. It gives the 3 an extremely tight, nimble feel. Turn-in is quick, grip impressive, and balance superb. There's almost no front push or plow, and very little body roll. The power rack-and-pinion STEERING is very precise, delivering HIGH LEVEL OF FEEDBACK. It's an impressive performance, and well above the levels of the Protege and its competitors.”
 
Compare to the Volvo sibling also wearing sport suspenion & 17"s, I wonder why? Could it be Mazda's firmer bushings?
 
(S40 T-5)“Handling, with or without optional Electronic Stability Control, is a big improvement over the first S40. The strut front, rear multi-link suspension in Sport Package trim is European taut without being stiff. Body roll is modest, and while the electro-hydraulic STEERING LACKS ROAD FEEL, it does have a good weight to it. Like the powertrains, there is a much sportier, nimble feel with a low level of front plow, much like a good rear-wheel drive European sport sedan. But the price for that prowess is a car that transitions to oversteer quicker than most front drive sedans.”
 
“2004.5 Volvo S40
 
 Engine 2.5-liter twin-cam I-5
 
 Horsepower 218
 
 Torque 236 lb feet
 
 0-60 mph 6.9 seconds
 
 1/4 mile 15.2 seconds 97 mph
 
 60-0 mph 119 feet
 
 EPA Mileage 25 mpg city
31 mpg highway
 
 MotorWeek's
mileage loop 27 mpg
mixed city/highway”
 
“2004 Acura TSX
 
 Engine 2.4-liter DOHC 4-cylinder
 
 Horsepower 200
 
 Torque 166 lb feet
 
 0-60 mph 7.6 seconds
 
 1/4 mile 15.9 seconds 90 mph
 
 60-0 mph 126 feet
 
 EPA Mileage 21 mpg city
29 mpg highway”
 
What a waste of (premium)gas! That’s why cars w/ weak low-end suck. Even though the S40 2.4i revs loudly like a vacumn cleaner, at least it doesn’t need to rev as often as the TSX or even the Mazda 3S.

#773 of 1117 by benjamins

Apr 15, 2004 (5:47 pm)

Replying to: creakid1 (Apr 15, 2004 4:49 pm)
 MotorWeek's
mileage loop 27 mpg
mixed city/highway”
 
“The Mazda3's front MacPherson strut/rear multi-link suspension was developed by Ford. It gives the 3 an extremely tight, nimble feel. Turn-in is quick, grip impressive, and balance superb. There's almost no front push or plow, and very little body roll. The power rack-and-pinion STEERING is very precise, delivering HIGH LEVEL OF FEEDBACK. It's an impressive performance, and well above the levels of the Protege and its competitors.”
 
Compare to the Volvo sibling also wearing sport suspenion & 17"s, I wonder why? Could it be Mazda's firmer bushings?
 
"(S40 T-5)“Handling, with or without optional Electronic Stability Control, is a big improvement over the first S40. The strut front, rear multi-link suspension in Sport Package trim is European taut without being stiff. Body roll is modest, and while the electro-hydraulic STEERING LACKS ROAD FEEL, it does have a good weight to it. Like the powertrains, there is a much sportier, nimble feel with a low level of front plow, much like a good rear-wheel drive European sport sedan. But the price for that prowess is a car that transitions to oversteer quicker than most front drive sedans.” "
 
Maybe it is just the overall feel of Volvo vs. other cars. There's no reason why the Volvos steering should feel different *that* much different. Maybe it is just the way Volvo sets up suspensions that things subjectively feel filtered. I don't know. Maybe the Volvo actually has more road feel than the testers perceive. The Volvo is going for a different ride, less sporty. Like I said, Volvo is essentially a grand touring car, they don't really make sports sedans.
 
Mazda has stiffer bushings?

#774 of 1117 Yes, from the Focus II by creakid1

Apr 15, 2004 (6:31 pm)

Mazda also relocated the front swaybar mounting points to let the bar do a tighter job. Also, Mazda uses their own quicker-ratio Japanese steering rack.
 
This T-5 is already w/ sport suspension & 17" wheels, not the regular touring T-5.
 
As I test drove the Mazda3, which has sport-tuned suspension std, w/ 16"s vs the S40 2.4i w/ sport suspension & 16"s, I found them both fairly similar except the Volvo has less harshness along w/ less road noise. So it's pretty obvious that the Volvo has softer bushings like the Focus II. Thank God the steering feedback didn't become completely washed out like the TSX.
 
Also, the Volvo's sport suspension has slightly less abrupt rebound in the shock setting than the Mazda3, which always bounces right back after each bump as if there are only firm springs & no shocks.
 
Interestingly, my experience w/ both Mazda & Volvo is that both steerings feel natural & allow me to steer intuitively despite limited steering feedback, although the Mazda somehow feels too light(especially for its quicker ratio) while the Volvo feels a tad less on the surface details but still changes weighing nicely upon tire-grip change. The TSX's lack of tire-grip feel went too far & bugged the hell out of me. Part of the reason the TSX's steering feels artificial is due to some disruption of the strong centering action & that further covers up the weighing change due to tire slipperage.
 
During intentional abrupt twisting of the steering wheel on the drive-event track, the Mazda's steering pump couldn't catch up & created intermittent "freeze", & that sucks. It didn't happen on the Volvo, but then the Volvo was on a wet track, which might not demand as much power assist.

#775 of 1117 MPG by josh684

Apr 15, 2004 (6:35 pm)

Im not getting good mileage like that. At 75 MPH it tells me I get 29.5 MPG. In the city I average 18, thats with the 2.4i. I put regular gas in, im gonna try with midgrade to see if its worth the extra money.

#776 of 1117 mpg improve a lot when slowing down from 75 to 65 mph by creakid1

Apr 15, 2004 (6:46 pm)

#777 of 1117 creakid1 by venus537

Apr 15, 2004 (7:00 pm)

since the TSX has almost 90% of its torque at around 2000 rpms i would say the TSX isn't the low-end torque car you imply it is. but because of the TSX's weight it can be argued that it just doesn't have enough torque.
 
are you implying the mazda 3s has better low end torque than the TSX? you got to be kidding. this engine is probably more lively in the 3 than the 6 but it's lacking compared to honda's 2.4l.
 
the maxda 3 lineup is probably the cream of the crop in its class, but i don't think too many people are cross shopping this car despite its track numbers with the S40 or TSX.

Messages Page 78 of 112

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement