I’ve never been a fan of the smallest Volvo, the S40. Though I’ve never driven one, from what I’ve read the driving experience is nothing special. Sitting in one, I did not care for the high instrument panel and scant rear seat knee room. Also, the car was nothing special to look at.
For 2004.5 Volvo has introduced a totally redesigned S40 sedan. The wagon, renamed the V50, will arrive a few months later. The new cars are based on Ford’s latest global small car platform, also used for the Mazda3 and Europe-only second-generation Ford Focus. (The platform was deemed too costly for the American Focus, so ours soldiers on with the old platform.)
Ford has been criticized for basing the smallest Jaguar on the Ford Mondeo. Will the same be true for the new S40? The old S40 used a Mitsubishi platform, yet no one seemed to hold this against it. As far as the car's image was concerned, it helped that Volvo heavily modified the car. What about this time? Is the new S40 just a Mazda with Volvo trimmings? Or has Volvo again heavily modified a shared platform, and to what effect?
I recently drove two new S40s, a base sedan with the normally aspirated five, labeled ׀.4i,” and a T5 with the turbo, to find out.
Volvo S40 Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Volvo S40 rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. To gain access to such information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Styling
Famed GM designer Bill Mitchell once wryly asserted that styling a small car is like tailoring a dwarf: the end result just never looks right. Many manufacturers have nevertheless figured out how to create good-looking small cars. Not Volvo.
I saw the new S40 at the Detroit auto show last January and was, well, underwhelmed. The new styling combines the Volvo S60/S80 sweeping roofline and strong shoulders with the tall bodysides of an Audi A4 and the rounded ends of a VW Jetta. Although the Volvo, Audi, and VW aesthetics all work on their own, this combination doesn’t quite gel, especially not on such a stubby body. While the new styling is certainly a vast improvement over the old, that was a rather low bar to clear. The S40’s rounded, oddly pinched ends clash with its tall, slabbish bodysides. Even more than the Mazda3 sedan, which suffers from a similar ailment, the S40 appears stout and stubby. Especially at the rear end. It’s as if they started out designing a longer vehicle, then scrunched the ends to hit the target for overall length.
This target appears to have been the BMW 3-Series. At 175.9 inches the new S40 is a tenth of an inch shorter than the small BMW. But it looks roughly a foot shorter. Even a Mazda3 is a couple inches longer. Why not make the S40 at least as long as the Mazda? I suspect because that would place it too close to the 180.2-inch-long S60. If the goal was to make the new S40 look far smaller than the S60, then Volvo certainly succeeded.
The T5 had two features that accentuated the car's odd proportions. First, its bright red paint made the fenders' odd curves stand out all the more. Second, the T5 was fitted with a $1,995 body kit that made the sides even taller, and thus made the car appear even more stubby. The body kit's spoiler reduced the visual length of the already very stubby trunk. The non-kitted metallic gray 2.4i was easily the better looking car.
Inside Volvo took more risks. The aluminum-finished center stack stands free of the instrument panel. Only about an inch thick, it intentionally resembles a piece of high-end audio equipment from Bang & Olufson. The effect was somehow more striking when I first experienced it at the auto show. It still looks sharp, but it’s small size limits its visual impact. To further limit its visual impact get the “wood effect” (i.e. fake) trim plate that attends the 2.4i’s premium package.
On a positive note, the audio and climate controls on the center stack are very well laid out and very easy to operate. Large knobs and buttons control most functions. Another example of the car’s generally excellent ergonomics: the ignition is located high on the instrument panel.
The “Dala textile/T-Tec” seat trim that attends the sport package on the 2.4i and comes standard with the T5 will not be for everyone. I’m not sure where I’ve seen similar fabric before—maybe luggage and backpacks? I suspect that the inspiration was some sort of “active lifestyle” athletic equipment. Whatever the inspiration, the upholstery looks and feels odd in a car. Durable perhaps, but not high end. Maybe they want to encourage people to spend extra for the leather? This leather, fitted to the turbo car, looks and feels like that in other Volvos—durable but not rich.
Most materials appear and feel subtly upscale. The major exception is the rubber accordion-style boot around the parking brake lever in the 2.4i. It could have been lifted from a Dodge. Overall, though, the materials look and feel worthy of the car’s price. Audi has nothing to worry about, but VW and Saab are comparable. Relative to the Japanese, the S40's interior is superior to that in an Infiniti G35 but about equal to those in the new Acura TSX and TL. A Mazda3's interior, though it looks upscale for a $20,000 car, contains far more hard plastic on the dash and doors. This is likely the main place extra money was spent on the Volvo.
Accommodations
Get into the new S40 and things get funky. And not necessarily good funky. The standard seat is manually adjustable for height and tilt. The levers for these functions are easy enough to reach and operate. In contrast, the rotary control to recline the seat is the furthest rearward I’ve ever experienced. It’s so hard to reach that the power seat seems almost a mandatory option.
The driving position is pretty good, with the instrument panel low enough to provide good forward visibility. My major issue here: the armrest on the door is at least an inch higher than it should be. To be comfortable I had to raise the seat. Luckily there’s enough headroom (especially without the sunroof) that this isn’t too much of a problem. But I cannot recall ever having to raise a seat to get the armrest at a comfortable height.
The seat itself is comfortable, but not as large and comfy as that in a larger Volvo. Unlike seats in other Volvos this one is fairly firm. You sit on it more than in it. Lumbar support is manually adjustable. Lateral support is adequate, certainly better than that in, say, a base 9-3, but could be better.
As in the Mazda3 rear seat legroom is disappointing. Based on the stats there’s even less here than in the Mazda, but they seemed about the same to me. With the front seat set for my 30-inch inseam (I’m at best average in height) there’s not much space between the rear seat cushion and front seatback. Luckily the rear seat is high enough off the floor that sitting in back with your shins nearly vertical is actually almost comfortable. I’ve experience less comfortable rear seats in larger cars. The S60 isn’t too much better. In either Volvo sedan, rear headroom is limited. If you need rear headroom, strongly consider the wagons.
Despite the car’s stubby rear end the trunk is actually large for a compact: 15.5 cubic feet. On top of this, its shape is very even and the trunk hinges are the non-intrusive sort. For even more cargo room the rear seat folds in two sections.
Interior storage isn’t as good. The compartment under the center armrest is tiny. The glove compartment is very deep—I had trouble reaching the back of it. This is good if you carry a lot in there, but good luck reaching the stuff at the back.
On the Road
Well, the new S40 looks like a Volvo, and (aside from a shared stubbiness) unlike the Mazda. But how does it drive?
If the brochure is to be believed the turbo adds very little mass: the 2.4i weighs 3,082 pounds, the T5 3,120. This is a few hundred pounds heavier than the Mazda, but a hundred or two lighter than the German competition. It’s certainly light enough that even the 168-horsepower base engine, much less the 218-horsepower turbo, should be plenty powerful.
When the 2005s arrive this summer--2004.5 will be a short half model year--a five-speed manual will be standard in the 2.4i and a six-speed manual will be standard in the T5. For now only a five-speed automatic is available.
When hitched to this five-speed automatic the base engine feels soft until the tach approaches 4,000. This powertrain feels best at highway speeds. There’s no satisfyingly plump midrange to speak of. The brochure claims that either engine “responds instantly to your every command.” Whoever wrote that never drove the car.
As in just about everything Volvo makes, the five-cylinder engine note falls well short of thrilling. Unless you find the sound of agricultural machinery thrilling. Any six and most fours sound better than this cobby five.
The same goes for the T5 engine, only more so. From a dead stop the T5’s initial response to the throttle is so gradual that at first I assumed the parking brake must be set. But after setting and releasing the parking brake a couple times the car’s responses (or lack thereof) remained unaltered, so I guess the engine’s throttle is just tuned this way. Perhaps this was deliberate to make driving the car in ultra-slow stop-and-go urban traffic as easy as possible? Perhaps. But out in the suburbs I had to get used to dipping deeper into the throttle than I normally would.
Once the car is moving, the T5's nonlinearity has a differnt source than the 2.4i's. The turbo's torque peaks at a low, low 1,500 RPM--vs. 4,400 RPM in the base engine--but this torque only flows after the turbo has spooled up. Boost lag is most noticeable at lower speeds; on the highway it's almost a non-issue. Past turbos certainly involved more lag—there’s no need to count to three and then hold on for dear life here—but linear this engine is not. Once boost is up the car smoothly rockets forward, but I like my power more instantaneous. Driving the T5 quickly along a curvy road requires more planning than I care to engage in.
The five-speed automatic is not as smooth as most these days. It’s an adaptive unit, so its possible that the mild jerkiness I experienced would go away once it “learned” my driving style. The standard manual shift feature is no better or worse than the average. Actuated by the console-mounted shifter, it generally takes a moment to respond.
The steering contributed to my unease behind the wheel. If there’s anything Volvo should have lifted straight off the Mazda3, it’s that car’s direct, precise steering. Initial reviews I've read have similarly described the S40's steering. My experience differed substantially. To me, the steering in the new S40 feels much like that in other Volvos. On center it’s numb and off-center it’s oddly non-linear. Sometimes it feels too slow, other times it feels too quick. Precise and predictable it is not. The brochure promises that “quick and precise steering response…makes the car remarkably reassuring and relaxing on straight and twisting roads alike, irrespective of the road surface.” Once again, clearly written by someone who did not drive the car. And I haven't even gotten to the effect of the road surface yet.
Uncommunicative steering generally reduces my confidence to push a car hard, and certainly makes such an endeavor less enjoyable. This said, push the new S40 hard and you'll find a capable chassis. Okay, “nimble” and “agile” never entered my mind, but this might have been the fault of the steering. The car sticks pretty well in turns, especially with the 17s, and it handles more neutrally than the average front-drive sedan. Torque steer is minimal, even with the turbo. “Secure” is used a few times in the brochure to describe the handling. I’ll accept that. Oddly, when I drove the S80 a few months ago it left me with much the same impression: a decent chassis hobbled by numb non-linear steering.
As I left the dealership in the 2.4i, my initial impression was that the new S40 possessed the ride quality, quietness, and overall refinement expected of a premium nameplate. All sensation of the road beneath the car and the air around it possessed the muffled quality I’ve associated with luxury since the advent of Lexus. Once up to speed wind noise remained muffled, but moderate road noise crept in on some surfaces, especially with the T5’s optional 17-inch tires. Laminated side glass is optional for those who desire even less wind noise.
Generally, the S40 rode well. But some road surfaces didn’t agree with it. On patchy roads the ride sometimes became mildly busy, with a high frequency of small vertical motions. On rougher roads the chassis sometimes lost its composure, resulting in a great deal of bounding, pitching, and head toss. Some bumps hit at an especially bad angle, sending a crude reverberation through the front suspension.
Both cars were fitted with the sport package’s stiffer suspension. The T5’s optional 17-inch tires made matters decidedly worse. The base suspension likely rides better. While the sport suspension likely provides flatter cornering and a tauter feel, in my view these are of little value without more precise steering. I've driven a number of cars recently that combined a tight suspension with numb steering, and frankly I just don't get it.
The brochure promises that the new S40 is “safe and secure, relaxing and predictable, yet at the same time full of zest for life.” The word “excitement” is sprinkled liberally throughout. Yet I found neither relaxation nor excitement.
Safety
In keeping with Volvo’s traditional emphasis on safety, the S40 has a large number of standard safety features, including ABS, brake assist, traction control, seat belt pre-tensioners, active head restraints (that are a bit too intrusive in normal driving), and six airbags. One potentially misleading feature: Volvo calls its traction control STC, for “Stability and Traction Control.” This implies stability control is also standard. It’s not. Instead, DSTC, for “Dynamic Stability and Traction Control, is an option.
Although I haven’t thoroughly checked, I suspect that no other car at the 2.4I’s base price has as many standard safety features. However, a few do once you go a few thousand above this price, as the S40 quickly does once you start checking off boxes. The Saab 9-3 and Infiniti G35, which add stability control to the list, come to mind.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
Last Words
After driving the Mazda3, I suspected the Volvo S40 was going to be the best driving Volvo ever. Sadly, it has been thoroughly Volvoized, including numb steering and a cobby engine. The more I think about it, the fewer reasons I can think of for buying the car. Sure, it offers a semi-premium Euro badge for the same money as a mass market midsize sedan. But aside from the upscale interior little about the car justifies its price. I’d pass.
Sometimes a manual transmission can transform a car. I plan to test the T5 six-speed once it becomes available. With any luck Volvo will also retune the steering for 2005.
If you're still wondering how I'd answer the question posed in the title, the new S40 is truly a Volvo. Problem is, this isn't all or even mostly good. Despite the use of a Ford corporate platform, the new car has all of Volvo's traditional weaknesses as well as its traditional strengths. And the weaknesses are the sort I personally cannot live with.
To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, visit www.truedelta.com.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2008 Shopping.com, Inc.