I put 500 miles on an S40 this weekend and was surprised at the acceleration. It would easily squeal the tires from a standing start on asphalt and wasted no time going from 50 mph to 80 mph. Considering the way it drove, I figured that it must have a turbo -- in spite of having no indication on the car. The car had 16,000 miles.<
<
So, I popped the hood and found a four cyl. engine -- but did not see any turbo. But, it may have been well hidden. Consumer guide stated, "Under the hood, a 160-horsepower turbocharged four-cylinder engine worked with a four-speed automatic transmission." Another site shows about a half dozen different engine configurations for the car.
<
If the TSX does as well, I will be impressed. I liked the way the S40 drove. It had a solid and safe feel, quick acceleration, and the best brakes I have experienced. I averaged 25 MPG and had to sit in one traffic jam for an hour -- with the engine running. It ran on P195/60R-15 V83 tires. But, I found the ergonomics of the S40 lacking and would not consider buying one because of the ergonomics. I have thus far spent only about a half-hour with a new TSX, so I cannot effectively compare the performance of the TSX it to anything else at this time. But, I am hoping that the TSX will accelerate as quickly. Consumer Guide shows the torque of the S40 to be 175 ft-lbs.

Edited: I should add that it was an AT. I checked the Oct. issue of C&D this morning and found that the S40 was given second place, right behind the TSX. The S40 appeared to have a smaller trunk with a smaller opening.

 

Assuming it was the 2.4L it's actually an inline 5 normally aspirated engine.
The TSX will definitely out accelerate it.

 

The 2004 S40 is available with a choice of only 2 5 cylinder engines. A 2.4L Naturally aspirated 5 cylinder and a 2.5L Turbocharged 5 cylinder.

The 2.4 is rated at 168HP and 170 lb-ft while the 2.5 is rated at 218HP and 236 lb-ft.

The only trannies are a 5 speed auto or 5MT for the 2.4 or a 6MT or 5AT with the 2.5.

I'm pretty sure all the specs you posted are for the 2003 S40 which was a completely different car.

 

I'm pretty sure all the specs you posted are for the 2003 S40 whicj was a completely different car.

 

The first car that I drove was the 2004.5 all new s40. Very, very nice car. I think it has a few more horses then the TSX but accel felt comparable. I loved the s40, but didn't like the price tag. I recently bought a TSX, and it has all of the perks of the s40, without the bloated price. In my area, I got my TSX for $25.5K, and the s40 would have cost me $32.5K. I don't believe that it is $7000 nicer then the TSX. Hell, I'd put my TSX against it anyway.

 

Compared to a turbo-charged car, the TSX may not feel as fast, but the reality will be that the TSX will be at least as quick if not quite a bit quicker.

The gas mileage on the TSX is as good if not better.

The tires on the TSX are 20mm wider and are fitted to 17-inch wheels (looks much better).

The TSX ergonomics are beyond reproach. Honda/Acura does some of the best ergonomics in the business.

The TSX is listed at 166 lb-ft. of torque. This has consistently been shown to be underrated on dyno tests (run a search of the forum to see dyno graphs).

Overall, the TSX is a better car than the Volvo in many ways, but Volvo does have a reputation for safety (which I personally believe that the TSX can match). In the end, it comes down to what you want, but give the TSX a couple hundred miles and see how you feel about it.

 

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly Jim drove. What it an 03? He mentions 4 cylinders and that it had 15 inch tires and a 4 speed AT, the 04 has neither. Confusing post.

 

I don't think it was the 2004.

 

T5 is nice. Almost got it until I met TSX and realize the price diff.
S40/T5 are so rarely seen (see more TSX), everytime I saw one I just kept looking at it.
I definitely would have gotten it had it been made in Sweden instead of being 1st-year Belgium-built.

 

The fact he says the trunk in the S40 is smaller than the TSX also points to the fact he drove an older model. The current S40 has a truck that's over a cubic foot larger than the TSX's trunk.

 

The trunk in the new (5 cyl) S40 appears rather small; regardless what the numbers say. It seemed as though I would have had to fit my golf clubs in the longitundinal or even diagonal direction.

This is one of many reasons I went with the TSX.

 

So numbers really can lie! Thanks for the info.

 

I suspect that it must have been an 2003 model. The dash was more similar to the TSX than to the photos in Oct. C&D.

Apparently, Volvo has given two different cars, produced in two different countries, the same designation, S40. After doing some online reading, it is my current understanding that the first generation had a 4 cyl. engine and the new generation has 5 cyl. engines, including a turbo diesel. It is confusing.

And, since the older generation apparently was not well accepted, based upon online reviews that I read, it seems odd that Volvo would have made so many changes to the car and not change the designation. Perhaps they were trying to prevent the first generation from depreciating too fast.

 

TSX, TSX, TSX!!! Save money, go fast, smile often.

 

I did all three.

 

My brother drives a new S40, without the turbo. I drove the turbo as well before picking the TSX.

It's a very nice car, and the availability of a good-quality cloth seat surface rather than mandatory leather was definitely a plus for me, but it was about the only plus I could think of. I did briefly think about the V50 with the turbo. Basically the same car with a wagon body. There are times I need the extra space and I'm sure I'll miss having it, but I decided in the end that for the 2-3 times a year it matters I can rent a van or truck. (I wish they'd give us some "TSXed" version of the Euro Accord wagon, something to compete with the A4, Mazda6 and IS300 sport wagons, but that's just me...)

Comparing the sedans, there was no comparison to me. My brother got a very good deal and likes the car though. It's far better than anything else Volvo has made in years.

 

I like the S40 a lot, but being 6'5" I need the leg room in the TSX.

 

No, it's not just you! I would love to see a TSX wagon, especially with a rounder rear hatch.... maybe AWD and IMA....

 

 

Volvo came out with the S40 a few years ago, a basic box on box design intended to appeal to the luxo-starter market, I believe. The sales were lackluster at best, and Volvo retuned the vehicle completely, I believe only keeping the S40 designation in their lineup, parhaps for the reasons that you delineate, although anyone looking at the body style can see the difference quickly - the old one had all the style and elan of an older Toyota Corolla. The new S40 2004.5 came out relatively recently, with a complete new body style that looks rather like a S60 that got shrunk in the wash - much more distinctive - and in some ways a bit more attractive in its taut lines than the bigger boatier S60 that it is clearly based on - and with a pillar center console that some love, some hate, but few are neutral about. I can't speak as well to the mechanics of the car, but having driven one of the S40 2004.5, I found that the handling had what I think of as a classic Volvo handling - limited road feel, tanklike operational style, not particularly nimble - and was very disappointed. THe center console pillar design was interesting to me, but I suspect it will date quickly. Again, I tend to look at the TSX as not the fastest car on the road, but one of the sweetest to drive and whip around in.