I used to own a 1993 850 GLT which served me well for many years. Recently though, I don't know what Volvo is doing! I am sooooo happy I bought a TSX...it rocks! Just to compare, let's take a look at the base S60 2.4.....less powerful, no stability control system, 15 inch wheels, no sunroof, no power driver's seat, no leather, no Homelink, no auto-dimming miror, single CD with 6 speakers, no HID lights....and the list goes on....all for $36, 495 (Canadian)!!!!!!!!! Are they insane?????!!!!!! This is almost $2000 more for a car with far less standard features, inferior reliability and inferior build quality when compared to the TSX. How do they even sell any cars? Bloody Ford srewed them over! They used to have a lot going for them. Is it just me, or does Volvo have a serious problem?

 

Not sure if your interested in buying or leasing. My boss just bought a S60 AWD with the 208HP Eng. He says the lease deal he got was $10 a month more than an Accord or Camry would have been. I think the MSRP of that car is about $43,995

 

Yeah, but Peter is right. For what you get, the Volvo's are overpriced.

I test drove both the new S40 and the S60 and they both suck. The interior of the S40 is super small, and if you add options to both of these cars to get them to TSX level, you will pay damn near 5-6000 over MSRP - which will get you up in the mid 30's.

Safety alone will not sell cars.

 

When I bought my V70T5 6 1/2 years ago, there were more reasons to pay the price premium; it was safer and had a reputation as a durable car. It might still be the latter, I just scheduled my Volvo's 140,000 mile service. It still doesn't use any oil and still has the original clutch.

Volvo has the "fast wagon" market pretty much to itself. BMW and Mercedes sell (relatively) few wagons. Too bad Honda won't import their neat Euro-Accord station wagon! (And too bad BMW won't import the 3-series touring with the 3.0 liter motor!)

What I didn't care for about the S60 turbo is that it's heavier and therefore slower than the S70 turbo. The sloping S60 roofline also makes the rear seat almost useless for transporting anything but small kids, animals and dwarves. Then there's the lack of "cubbyholes" in the S60 and S80 dashboards, no space for all the loose change and bridge and parkway tokens.

When I first tried one of the first '03 Accord EX-LV6s I felt right at home (except for the slushbox). Big round instruments even the seat heater switches are in the same location. I think Honda now makes a better Volvo 850 sedan than Volvo ever did. And if the Accord and TSX were inspired by the Volvo 850 and SVC70, the S60 and S80 were inspired by Buick.

 

My wife and I love our V70 wagon, which we chose as an alternative to getting a minivan. It's silver metallic and looks sweet parked in the driveway next to our red TSX.

It's not as quick or fun to drive as my TSX, but it has a nicely styled, high quality interior and very sweeping, elegant exterior styling. It's a great highway touring car, with very good high speed stability and very comfy seats.

I love the thoughful design touches like the fold-flat rear seats that make a flat cargo bed that's long enough to sleep in. I love the safety, and bank vault solid body structure. It just feels like quality and luxury whenever I drive it. Oh, and the kids love riding in the third row jump seats, much to the chagrin of anyone driving behind us!

It's funny, perhaps Volvo's best feature, and one of the reasons why we own, is their rapid depreciation. A 2004 V70 with all the options is about $34,000. We got our 2 year old, 26,000 mile, Certified Pre-Owned model for $22,000.

 

My new TSX is the first non-Volvo car that I have purchased since buying a new 1980 Accord. I still have the '89 740 wagon (225,000 miles) and a '95 850 GLT (120,000 miles) that I also bought new and plan on keeping for many more years. The wagon is now my daily driver and will be my winter car. My wife loves the 850. I too am really disappointed at the price of the new Volvos. I also don't like the styling, especially the rear. I do appreciate the durability of the older Volvos even though they do require significant maintenance. Maybe being bought by FORD has had a negative impact on Volvo recently. I certainly feel good about buying my new TSX. The handling, build quality, styling, and price are hard to beat.

 

I have two Volvos: a 1993 240 and a 1998 S-70GLT.

The old 240 has been as reliable as can be. We've had it since the car was 3 years old and *love* it in all it's basic, underpowered, plasticky guise.

The S-70 on the other hand is luxurious, very quick...it's a torque-monster, and hideously unreliable. We spend between $US2-3000 per year on maintainence. The Dear Missus won't let us get rid of it because she's a rehab physical therapist who helps rebuild car-accident victim bodies. To date, there is only two brands in the automotive industry on which she's never worked on an accident victim: Saab and Volvo. (long sentence eh??).

I see that Volvo has dropped in it's reliability ratings to be equal to Jaguar. *That's* bad!!! But I believe it. We've never had the check-engine light off for more than 3 months. The stereo quit every other month. The headlights burn out every 2-3 months. The blinkers were about the same until they were recalled. The tail lights need replacing twice annually. The engine stalls if you brake hard or accelerate hard.

So....goodbye Volvo. Even though I'd love a V-70R or even the new V-50.

Dr. Daryl

 

LOL! By the way, isn't the proper plural form "dwarfs"? At least that's what I learnt in my english classes. They made me unlearn "dwarves" which I had in turn picked up from AD&D, PhB first edition.

 

Damn, you're kidding me, right?

I learnt from D&D 1st edition, and have been using that plural form from heaven knows when.

Don't make me re-learn my English!!!

*Everything I learnt in life I learnt from Dungeons & Dragons*

 

Sorry, but I am not kidding. English is not my first language; picked it up through D&D'ing through my early teens. "Dwarves", I have later learned is not the proper form... but I wonder what Tolkien used in LOTR..? (sorry about the OT)

 

Tolkien used "Dwarves"


but about volvos.. I don't know much about them, my friend has an early 90s wagon and even though she doesn't like it I think its pimp Has been reliable though.

 

bottom line, like i said before and i'll say it again, the new Volvos suck, except for the S60R.

 

I agree with you guys....the new rear styling is awful...and while I realize that volvos are indeed very safe...I question whether they are still worth the price tag. We all know that the TSX has done very well in all of the crash tests, and that Honda builds very safe cars. I read recently that they want to try and rival Volvo in the safety department, which I'm sure they will be able to do for a much lower price tag than the Swedes (or should I say Americans) do. As for reliability....Volvos have gone way down hill. In the early 90s this was a selling point for Volvos...but alas....no more. Even before the Ford takeover, their quality control seemed to on the fritz. Oh well....long live Honda.

 

dwarf P Pronunciation Key (dwôrf)
n. pl. dwarfs or dwarves (dwôrvz)
An abnormally small person, often having limbs and features atypically proportioned or formed.
An atypically small animal or plant.
A small creature resembling a human, often ugly, appearing in legends and fairy tales.

dwarves P Pronunciation Key (dwôrvz)
n. A plural of dwarf .

Source :The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

But I digress. I've been buying Swedish cars for over 20 years. I bought my first Saab when I lived in DC and a pediatrician at Children's was hit head-on in her VW Rabbit by a drunken Russian diplomat driving a big Benz. She, of course, died. As a diplomat he, of course, walked.

The Volvo 240 was designed prior to the invention of C-A-D by engineers with slide-rules. IIHS crash tested a 1984 244GL diesel last year, the results were dismal, even the roof buckled just like the cheapest Daewoo. I'd have to guess that some of the 240s reputation for safety is because owners self-select for relatively safe drivers, and because it's more of a challenge to drive unsafely with all of 114HP under the hood.

If you look at the DOT and IIHS crash test results, the full-size Accord and the TSX do about as well as the Volvo S60. Honda, of course, now has the benefit of big computers to help with the designing and it's not any more difficult for Honda to design a safe car than for Volvo.

I've found the Volvo's electrical poltergeists to be very annoying. I should mention that there has been a Volvo recall on the headlight wiring, in addition to the turn signals. I've heard that Volvo has contracted building it's electrical components to, of all choices, FIAT! Which supports my recent Volvo experiences. $3000++ in annual maintenance sounds about right, including normal wear items like tires and brakes and repairs. I drive about 25,000 miles annually, this was still a lot cheaper than leasing a new BMW 745iL I told myself. With 236hp and a 5-speed and suspension and tire upgrades in a Volvo station wagon body, I still love driving the car, and my daughter is planning on inheriting it this summer.

 

Yeehaah! This means Gygax was right and my english teacher wrong. After 20-odd years, this wrong is righted!

 

Thanks for the tip! This is the year I get my wife back into a station wagon or small SUV. She loves sedans, but she keeps buying furniture and bassinettes for our grandchildren and etc etc. Her idea of fun is to hang out in the Salvation Army basement just to see what they bring out next! Sedans = no. We owned a Volvo wagon in the 70's until our children got too big for the third seat. I think it might be time to try it again.

 

Guys,

There's nothing wrong with a Volvo in these days.
The S60/V50/V70s are super classy cars, although I drive the Accord Tourer I woun't mind to swap it with a Volvo.

The S/V40 is not a Volvo...

 

Nothing wrong, besides the price. The only one I'd look at in the future is a wagon - I've had enough of the sedans.

Had a 1980 240DL - stick, no power steering, crappy radio, but it was a freaking tank. (demolished another car when they pulled out in front of me) Still ran great in 1996 though.

1987 760GLE - nice, but it seemed like I was always fixing something. Could be that things were just wearing out, but so was my patience.

1997 960 - Was in love with the car for awhile. Seemed good, but again - repair time, I can't get comfortable in it and it drives like crap. (always floats right, very hard to turn left.. no one can find what's wrong)

I sometimes drive the 960 to work to save on mileage on the TSX, but its like night and day.. I can't wait to get back into my tsx.

-r

 

I am comparing the TSX and S40 T5 in anticipation of a purchase this summer. Drove both this past week.

Price aside (and not easy to put aside), these cars are closely matched when you look at the stat sheets including the Acura.com comparison.

My opinion:
TSX
-reliability likely better but new s40 better than other Volvo's? time will tell
-better interior (one of the best in this price range and likely anything 10K more)
-Price with comparable equip (sorry just can't put it aside)

S40
-more torque (a lot more torque than on paper and not intrusive into the steering)
-Braking more solid
-Steering more responsive (remember, my opinion)
-Premium stereo (@ prem price) rivals the TL unless you have a DVD-A
-Can get any interior with any color

Equal
-Interior room - Comments about smaller s40 interior are wrong. Both don't vary in any measurement by more than one inch or so.
-Styling - beauty is in the eye of the beholder so I won't compare. I think they are both attractive, sporty cars.
-Transmission - only can compare the autos. Both with quick, smooth upshifts but you can feel the torque drop off on the TSX and no, there is not a significant turbo lag on the S40
-Safety - pretty dead equal with more standard traction features on the TSX. I'd stick my family of four in either car.

Wish both would have:
-About 40 more HP with additional torque. Would likely have to be fed into AWD to avoid torque steer.
-Standard memory seat settings

So there you go. My car now is an 95 integra so I do appreciate the Acura line. I just think I'd have to get the 6MT to get to the torque of the TSX like I would like. Wife wants the auto and if momma ain't happy, no one is happy.

For me, it's going to be a tough call but I'm glad to read a lot of you are happy with your TSX. If I go with the TSX it'll be CG, just wish it would come in the lighter interior.

 

I am comparing the TSX and S40 T5 in anticipation of a purchase this summer. Drove both this past week.

Price aside (and not easy to put aside), these cars are closely matched when you look at the stat sheets including the Acura.com comparison.

My opinion:
TSX
-reliability likely better but new s40 better than other Volvo's? time will tell
-better interior (one of the best in this price range and likely anything 10K more)
-Price with comparable equip (sorry just can't put it aside)

S40
-more torque (a lot more torque than on paper and not intrusive into the steering)
-Braking more solid
-Steering more responsive (remember, my opinion)
-Premium stereo (@ prem price) rivals the TL unless you have a DVD-A
-Can get any interior with any color

Equal
-Interior room - Comments about smaller s40 interior are wrong. Both don't vary in any measurement by more than one inch or so.
-Styling - beauty is in the eye of the beholder so I won't compare. I think they are both attractive, sporty cars.
-Transmission - only can compare the autos. Both with quick, smooth upshifts but you can feel the torque drop off on the TSX and no, there is not a significant turbo lag on the S40
-Safety - pretty dead equal with more standard traction features on the TSX. I'd stick my family of four in either car.

Wish both would have:
-About 40 more HP with additional torque. Would likely have to be fed into AWD to avoid torque steer.
-Standard memory seat settings

So there you go. My car now is an 95 integra so I do appreciate the Acura line. I just think I'd have to get the 6MT to get to the torque of the TSX like I would like. Wife wants the auto and if momma ain't happy, no one is happy.

For me, it's going to be a tough call but I'm glad to read a lot of you are happy with your TSX. If I go with the TSX it'll be CG, just wish it would come in the lighter interior.

 

IMO thats just not true. If you outfit the S40 similarly to the TSX there is no comparison, esp because of price. You have to get the T5, and add all of the options basically. I also checked out both cars before I purchased a TSX and had never previously owner either an Acura or a Volvo. Despite the raw numbers, I found the S40 small and cramped.

Not much comes standard in the Volvo, and that center thin console is overrated - I thought it was going to be awesome, but its tiny. Not to mention the interior of the TSX is the best I've ever seen for the price.

Below is a list of options you need to add to bring the S40 to the level of the TSX. It upps the price of the Volvo to 32k

Premium Package $2,195
·Leather Seating Surfaces
·Power Glass Moonroof
·Memory Function for Power-Adjustable Driver Seat, 3-Position
·Memory Function for Power-Adjustable Heated Exterior Rearview Mirrors
·Power-Adjustable Passenger Seat, 8-Way with Lumbar Support


Sport Package $750

·Dynamic Suspension
·7 x 17" SAGITTA Alloy Wheels with 205/50/17 Tires
·Aluminum Inlays


Convenience Package $390

·Grocery Bag Holder
·Homelink Remote Garage Door Opener
·Auto-Dim Rearview Mirror with Compass


Climate Package

·Rain Sensor
·Headlamp Washers
·Heated Front Seats


Dynamic Stability and Traction Control (DSTC) $695


Bi-Xenon Headlamps (includes Headlamps Washers) $700


Power Glass Moonroof $$440



Options : $5,170

Base: $26,990

Total: $32,845

STANDARD FEATURES
·Transversely Mounted, 2.5-Liter, 5-Cylinder, Double Overhead Cam, Twin-Scroll Turbocharger with Intercooler and Continuously Variable Valve Timing (CVVT)
·218 hp
·5-Speed "Geartronic" Microprocessor-Controlled Automatic with "Auto-Stick" Function
·Front Wheel Drive
·Driver and Front Passenger Supplemental Restraint System - Dual-Threshold Air Bags
·Side Impact Air Bags for Driver and Front Passenger
·Inflatable Side Curtains (IC)
·Whiplash Protection Seating System (WHIPS)
·ISOFIX Baby/Child Seat Attachment System
·Intelligent Driver Information System (IDIS)
·Security System
·Safe Approach and Home Safe Lighting
·Electronic Key Integrated Remote Control with Central Power Door Locks
·Ultra-Slim Center Control Panel
·Personal Settings for Locking, Audio and Climate Control
·Leather Steering Wheel
·Power-Adjustable Driver Seat, 8-Way with Lumbar Support
·Electronic Climate Control (ECC)
·Trip Computer
·Performance Audio System with Single In-Dash CD
·16" Alloy Wheels


Warranty
·4 Years or 50,000 miles, whichever occurs first

 

WHOW....You've done your homework......

 

Well to tell you the truth - I was set on gettin an S40 before I even drove it. Then I saw the interior, drove it and wasnt impressed at all afterwards, taking into account the sticker price. I researched other cars after the disappointing testdrive and found the TSX.

 

I have a 2000 S40 coming off lease in 8 days. I drove the new S40 2.4i (non-turbo). The interioe does feel very small and it is dog-slow. Went right from the Volvo dealer to Acura. TSX looks better in and out, is much faster and handles much better. All for the same lease price. I had a 1997 Acura 2.2 CL so its back to Ack for me.

 

There’s a closer match between the S60 and the TSX instead of the S40.
Also in prize the S60 and the TSX are pretty close together where the S60 is actually a little bit cheaper but with fewer goodies.

 

I was in the same situation. I saw the pic's of the new S40Turbo and read the spec's and thought it was a definite improvement (it is) on the old S40. However, when you add all the options that come standard on the TSX (no Navi) I was looking at a base price of $3100.00 more than the TSX..... Then came the Navi upgrade. First of all, I believe only Honda(Acura), and Toyoya (Lexus) have touch screen Navigation. If you use the system often (I do) this becomes a very nice feature. I don't want to have to manually scroll to dial the numbers. I could understand if the other manufacturer's Navi systems were discounted lower than Acura's. but they are not! For $2000.00 I want the touch screen and the voice commands. The Volvo's Navi system is also smaller and farther away so it is difficult to see as well. Both cars are sporty and fun to drive with the torque edge in Volvo's corner and in my opinion, the handling of the TSX was far superior at high speeds and cornering. The Volvo salesman are going to pray that you do not go to Acura after seeing them because they will never see you again. Needless to say, I have a beautiful NHB 6 speed with Navi shining in my garage.

 

rumlauf,

Good points, even if mostly on navi. I haven't taken any car on some true twisties and higher speed turns. I'll go back some time this month and push the TSX and S40 harder than I did before. The Volvo dealer just got their T5 demo in the day I showed up so I didn't want to trash it by avoiding break in (I'm sure someone did that anyway two days later .

The Acura dealer doesn't keep a demo so I'll find one with higher miles and let it go, even if briefly.

I'm still worried about getting the torque out of the TSX at normal every day driving. The S40 has it all available at under 2000 rpms.

 

I have to disagree with this one. I know that the numbers are very close, but after being inside both a TSX and an S40, I think that the two companies are measuring differently somehow. The front room doesn't feel substantially different, but the rear in the S40 is absolutely tiny compared to the TSX. With the front seat all the way back, I have to turn my feet 90 degrees and wedge them tightly under the front seat while my knees are pressed firmly into the seat-back (I'm 6' tall). I can fit much easier in the back of my TSX, even with the seat all the way back. Plus, I felt the S40 had noticeably less rear headroom.

All in all, I was very suprised. The numbers made me expect something similiar in size, but a touch smaller than my TSX. In my opinion, it felt much smaller, especially in the back.

John

 

Yes, navigation, performance and resale value were the 3 most important things for me when purchasing a new car. The TSX rules the roost on Navi and resale by a landslide. The price tag of both cars loaded is also a $6000.00 difference which ended up playing a big part in the decision. On the performance end, the Volvo is quicker, but not by a great deal, but the Acura handles better, so that's a wash. Styling is all in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I like the way the new Volvo looks ( many do not), but I have not found anyone who does not think the look of the TSX is spectacular. Price out the Volvo on MSN AUTOS with all the same features as the TSX and you'll find the Volvo around $35k.

 

I posted this in another thread, but I think that it bears repeating here. I was dead set on getting the new S40, so much so the I was on a waiting list back in December, and at this point was comparing the S40 to the Acura TL and MB C230K. I am eligible for supplier discounts for fords, diamlers, and GM, and as such could have recieve the S40 at invoice and the C230K significantly below invoice and would have recieved favorable intrest rates on both cars.

When I test drove the S40 initially I loved it, I could not stop looking at the exterior, thought the center console was the most revolutionary design in the modern world, and that it felt tight and fast. I was throughly underwelmed with the C230K in my test drive and the TL felt much too big me. I went back to test drive the S40, this time the handed me the keys and said not to be gone too long. I was able to about 40 miles on it and was shocked when I really started to get annoyed with it. I do not car what the interior room is listed at, I felt cramped driving it. The door intruding combined with the center stack made it feel like my legs were in a hole. The center stack which I loved so much became inconvient, the correct button is difficult to press and it takes up so much room. Another thing I originally overlooked was that there is no storage AT ALL; the glove box is 3 inches tall by 7 inches and entends into the engine cavity about 20 inches, you can not even think about reaching behing the center stack for anything while driving, and the armrest storage can bearly fit a couple CDs. Also the more I drove the less I enjoyed the inital turbo feeling. I do not know what got to me the most but I decided against it even after they offered it to me below invoice, I felt real bad but I did not like the car.

I would suggest anyone looking into this car to spend so serious time in it, buyers remorse at this level is a terrible thing.

david

 

jaobrien,

Got to agree with you on the rear leg room. Listed the same as TSX but my 6'2" and size 13's did not fit behind the seat with the front adjusted for me. The cockpit wasn't too bad. Then again, I put myself in a 95 Integra almost everyday. The TSX's dash seems to have a concave shape that opens up the front room.

All logic tells me that the TSX is the better option. Don't know why I'm hanging on to consider the S40, esp. when it will probably be rebated by December along with finance incentives and I want to buy by this summer. Likely has to do with the newbie I dealt with at the Acura dealer. Nice guy but used "awesome" about 30 times while looking at and test driving the car.

I think everyone realizes the price difference optioned out. I wouldn't option out the S40 anyway.

Glad I found an intelligent thread on this forum. Some of the others leave me scratching my head.

 

I have enjoyed this thread, although at the writing of this it is now 5 months old? Anyone purchase the S40?

TIA

 

I've driven my colleague's S60 a number of times, and found it to be reasonably comfortable, but had quite a "tank-like" handling to it; car felt bigger than it was, and had to be navigated, rather than driven. Road feel was lousy, in my opinion, and the car had no lightness of feel anywhere. The interior is nice, but conventional. I waited to replace my old leasecar until I could drive the new S40, with the hope that it would be a fresh new vision for Volvo, and ended up feeling like a smaller tank, to me. The interior feels cramped to me (6'-2"), and it replicates it's larger brother's heavy-handed handling. I originally set out to lease a TL, but fell for the TSX's sweet handling, understated interior and crisp exterior. And - as this thread notes, you have to option the S40 up considerably to get a "comperable" in terms of fitout. And - am not surprised that the Volvo's reputation for durability is beginning to slip under Ford's management.

I personally suspect that Ford's longterm goal for Volvo is to have it fill the Mercury niche in FoMoCo's overall lineup - slightly luxed up family cars with that, while they may hold on to their reputation for safety, are not a driver's car.

 

before buying my TSX...i test drove the S40~ wow...i love the outside of it...it looked great! until i drove it of course....man....the auto tranny was the worse part of the car...the tranny just didn't know what i wanted...~~