Opinions on the New S40

Hello everyone,

I am currently in the market for a new car. I am looking at the new volvo
S40 (AWD T5 version), the SAAB 92X (Turbo AWD version) and the Subaru WRX
(not sti). From my research all 3 cars appeal to me and are up my budget.
I have heard that the SAAB is merely a Subaru WRX engine with a SAAB body -
is that true? Out of all 3.....the Volvo appeals to me the most......but
with the options i want (like moonroof etc)......the price is going over my
budget.

I have also never owned a Volvo and so I am interested to hear
opinions/concerns about its reliability etc. I generally tend to keep cars
for at least about 6-7 years.......My current Honda has about 120K miles and
is 7 years old and has served me really well with respect to realibility.
So my 2 main factors are I want a car thats fun to drive (I think all 3
above models would be fun to drive) but at the same time gives me the
reliability i want.

Just wanted to get opinions from die hard volvo fans on what i can expect by
owning a swedish car for about 6-7 years.

Thanks,
Pumba

 

Yes the Saab is a WRX with a body and interior (and apparantly a lot more
soundproofing/refinement tweaks) makeover... I like the new S40 the best out
of that lot too... But I'm debating S40 base vs Passat base (they're the
same price, one's smaller and cooler, the other is bigger, but a lot more
conservative) for sometime in 2005. Still need to take an S40 out for a spin
at the dealer tho, I've only looked at the one US spec model they had on
display, it was nice car... but it had leather and other options I wouldn't
get, and it didn't have the 12 speaker stereo (Dolby II system) which I
want. - I want a 5 speed manual, N-A 5 cyl, with cloth seats, basic standard
features, Dolby II system optioned out, and some nice rubber floor mats...
Nothing else.

The engine is basically the same as the current 5 cylinders, which have been
around more or less the same (tweaked in some areas of course, revamped
possibly in others) for over a decade... so it'll be reliable there.
Platforms new tho, Mazda 3 uses it, and so does Ford on the european
Focus... No one's owned one long enough for any long term conclusions tho.

I'd get an S40 over those other cars for styling alone.. and I can't stand
Subaru interiors (and most Japanese interiors for that matter) they either
seem too spartan - can't figure out where they hide all their features...
And that Subie body is just ugly IMO... Saab looks really good from the
front tho.

We have a 1993 960, and it's been very good for the past 11 years,
160KKms... New rad and one A/C pipe this year, a new rear caliper last year
(small leak in the cylinder), new muffler when the car was around 6-7 years
old... That's it for unschedualed maintenance... The car is on its 3rd set
of tires, still running its 1st set of snows, it's on its 2nd set of brake
pads all around, and on the OEM rotors... and we accumulate KM mainly on
combined driving... slightly more city.

 

Yes

Out of all 3.....the Volvo appeals to me the most......but

A Mazda 3 is very close to the Volvo 40--same platform shared between the
euro (not in the USA) ford focus, Mazda 3 and the Volvo 40--drive the Mazda
before you scof...

Our 850 (no turbo, automatic) has 122,000 with no problems, but regular,
expensive Volvo experenced tech service.

 

I have been very interested in the S40 T5 AWD. However, I have would
only be interested in the manual transmission. The T5 with automatic
transmission that I test drove 5 months ago was fantastic except
between 0 and 25 miles per hour. Manual transmission may have fixed
that. However after waiting 5 months for one to test drive, I can wait
no more.

I am buying a Jetta GLI with manual transmission. SAAB too big, BMW
and Audi too big and too sluggish for the smaller size engines. I did
not even try the larger engines because the out the door price exceeds
$35000 by the time one puts reasonable options in.

Wanted Sports car performance without looking like a sports car and
too boring was also out of the question (goodbye Subaru WRX). Mazda 3
was impressive but no responsive enough to the gas pedal.

Audi TT - absolutely fantastic but it is a coupe sports car...so out
of the question.

S40 the best looker, the most class but clearly they have a production
problem.

 

Only in terms of performance. But not feel.

Too much is made of the sharing. The Mazda 3 and Volvo s40 don't feel
particularly similar, IMO. The Mazda feels like a Mazda, the body
structure, shock damping, dyanamic qualities feel like Mazda (not a bad
thing, just different than Volvo). The Volvo s40 feels like it shares
the lineage with cars like the 850 and s60, with some athletic
injection, but the body structure, shock damping, brake feel, etc. feel
all Volvo. The materials used and ergonomics on the Mazda and Volvo are
very much their own, I saw nothing that seemed to be shared. The Volvo
uses 4 different types of steels, not true of the Mazda and the Mazda,
although tight, just doesn't feel as robust as the Volvo.

If anything, I think the new s40 feels more Volvo than the
Mitsubishi-based s40, which felt light for a Volvo and didn't have that
robustness that those used to Volvo will recognize.


By contrast, the Saab 2 feels like a Subaru with Saab dressing.

Ben

 

The platform does not include the engine, suspension, interior,
transmission, or other drive train gear, so it chiefly just determines
the basic crashworthyness and the size. The Mazda is strictly FWD while
all the others are AWD. Lacks many premium features like a trip
computer, traction control and stability control. Antilock brakes are
optional while all the others include them standard. It only has a 5
year body rust warranty.

Volvo S40 AWD T5 will last the longest. ~$27,306. Sharp handling and
quick acceleration, well-designed interior controls, long list of safety
features including standard front and rear head air bags and optional
integrated child safety seat. Has tightest turning circle. Includes
many standard features that are either optional or not available on the
others such as trip computer and traction control are standard and
stability control is available. Firm suspension. 8 year body rust
warranty. 6 speed manual transmission is standard and a 5 speed
shiftable automatic is optional.


Saab 9-2X Turbo AWD. ~$26,464 This is a wagon and the others are
sedans. Sporty good looks, forgiving ride quality without sacrificing
road feel and handling precision, punchy acceleration on turbo models.
Interior more Subaru than Saab, lacks many premium features like a trip
computer, navigation system, traction control and stability control. 6
year body rust warranty. 5 speed manual is standard. Limited towing
capacity.

Subaru WRX ~$23,272 It has a good engine but the body will not last as
long as the others. Its well-tuned suspension offers agile, enjoyable
handling along with a compliant ride. Tight rear quarters, limited
availability of side airbags. Lacks many premium features like a trip
computer, navigation system, traction control and stability control. 5
year body rust warranty. 5 speed manual is only transmission. No
external thermometer.

These AWD vehicles have similar mpg, driving range, length, height, and
weight. The Volvo has considerably more shoulder room front and rear and
more rear leg room.

 

Yes, but can a mere mortal take possesion of a manual transmission
Volvo S40 AWD T5?

 

Sure. You may have to order it rather than just take something off the
lot. You can "build & price" one at:

A 2005 S40 T5 AWD with 6-speed man. Trans. comes out to $27,710 for my
zip code.

 

I left out the link.

http://www.allnews40.com/ (sorry about that)

 

THINK about safety too the Japanese wrx is a joy toy while it lasts .The
Saab and Volvo are more substantial with a longer life engine .Check the
cost of parts and make up which you can afford .

 

I am not flaming you, but honestly, what is the difference between the Subie
and the Sabb powertrain?

 

My experience with Subaru and their power trains is the engines are
strong, the transmissions are weak and the bodies rust out. Saab has
better transmissions and don't rust out.

 

Thanks, however the question was about the wrx vs the 9-2
I think they are justa bout the same....

 

But the Saab 9-2 *is* a Subaru, even most of the body, it's mostly just a
front end facelift, I wouldn't expect any significant difference in
reliability (which is generally very good in Japanese cars) or safety
(somewhat questionable). I won't argue that it's not a good car, but I will
say that it seems like a silly car, if you want a Subaru go buy a normal
Subaru and save a few grand. If you want a Saab, buy a real Saab and get the
uniqueness and Swedish design.

 

.... and the Saab 9-2X Aero is sinking to the Subaru WRX level as a
result. I understand Saab used better materials on the interior, but
the rust-bucket exterior is still the same. The State of Pennsylvania
took my Subaru Legacy off the road with 120,000 miles on it because it
was not road worthy. It had received all routine maintenances at the
Subaru dealership and had numerous parts replaced due to rust, but rust
in the structural parts of the body and brake components had compromised
the vehicles safety.

The warranties are different:

Saab 9-2X Warranty:

Basic: 4 yr. / 50,000 mi.
Drivetrain: 4 yr. / 50,000 mi.
Roadside: 4 yr. / 50,000 mi.
Rust: 6 yr. / Unlimited mi.

Subaru WRX Warranty:

Basic: 3 yr. / 36,000 mi.
Drivetrain: 5 yr. / 60,000 mi.
Roadside: 3 yr. / 36,000 mi.
Rust: 5 yr. / Unlimited mi.

In comparison the Volvo V50 Warranty:

Basic: 4 yr. / 50,000 mi.
Drivetrain: 4 yr. / 50,000 mi.
Roadside: 4 yr. / Unlimited mi.
Rust: 8 yr. / Unlimited mi.

And the Volvo has considerably more shoulder room.