![Bugatti Bird-gate Followup: Driver identity revealed <b>[*UPDATE:</b> Now with actual crash video!]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/11/bugatti-veyron-swim-1258147199_143x85.jpg)
2006 Volvo S40 T5 AWD in the Autoblog Garage Day 1-2
We in this country often complain that Europeans get their pick of fun-to-drive, premium compact cars while we’re force fed SUVs and full-size trucks. The Volvo S40 is a rolling rebuttal to that argument. Europeans, however, have become accustomed to paying a premium for small cars that perform, handle and feel like a luxury car. Are North Americans ready to pay for the kind of small car they desire from afar, or is the grass growing in the cracks of the other guy’s parking lot just greener?
Can a potent powerplant, all-wheel drive, Volvo’s reputation for safety and the S40’s attractive styling make a convincing case for a compact car that costs over thirty-thousand clams? Let’s crank the S40’s odd little plastic key and find out…
Click sticker for readable highrez version
The Volvo S40 can be had in mild mannered 2.4i trim for around $24K, though Volvo sent us a range-topping T5 AWD model that starts at $28,715. Our tester had every option box short of a moonroof and DVD nav system checked, which revved the price up to around $33K. (Cough, cough… ahem) That’s thirty-three grand for a sedan built on the same C1 platform as the $15-$20K Mazda3. The Mazda3 is arguably the best sub-$20K sedan on the market and as much a threat to the S40 as the Acura TSX and Audi A4 despite their diverging lineage. The Acura and Audi meanwhile are the two most oft mentioned entry-level luxury sedans whispered in the same breath as our sporting Swede.
Out of the aforementioned group of competing sports sedans (see an Edmunds comparison here), the Volvo S40 T5 AWD stacks up very well producing the superlative output of the bunch with its 218-hp turbocharged 2.5L inline-five engine with variable valve timing. While the Audi A4 can be had with a 3.2L V6, we instead chose to face off with the 2.0T model that packs a 200-hp turbocharged four, though we did opt for the Quattro all-wheel drive.
The offset of tenacious traction via AWD is weight, and our Volvo and the Audi A4 are a lot heavier than the Acura TSX and especially the Mazda3. The Volvo S40 T5 AWD at 3,447 lbs. is certainly a bit husky for its class, but it wears its weight like a much larger vehicle. The S40 looks like the larger S60 accidentally shrunk in the wash. The leading edge of the hood and the rear deck are both high off the ground and Volvo’s trademark side “shoulders” are present here, all of which led to us giving the S40 a new nickname: the Raging Warthog. Just like those wild pigs with ample incisors, the S40 is small in dimension but big in stature. The design exudes large car confidence from its small body. So despite being no larger than the Mazda3, the Volvo S40 makes you feel like you’re driving something bigger and better than an econobox.
Our particular car was also laden with Volvo’s Dynamic Trim package, a $1,895 bundle of body kit baubles we would normally forego. The add-ons include front and rear spoilers, a lower rear valance, side sills and lower door edge moldings. The frosting on the cake is a set of 17-inch SCOTIA alloy wheels. These mega multi-spoke wheels usher the S40 T5 into boy racer territory and fetch more than a few unsolicited glances from teenagers driving around in ten-year old Hondas. Volvo offers an impressive number of six different wheels design for the S40, all of which we happen to prefer over the expensive SCOTIA rims. Go figure.
Volvo designers have made an artform out of successfully reinventing the box and this iteration of the S40 is perhaps our most favorite until the new S80 arrives later this year. The protruding Volvo grille with its flat front flanked by a pair of deeply offset headlamp clusters containing projector lamp low beams is much more distinctive than the Mazda3’s windswept fascia, but cars don’t sell on looks alone. Stay tuned as we review the content’s of Volvo’s voluptuous box and flog the Raging Warthog on the paved plains of suburbia.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
nate 2:01PM (4/26/2006)
Is it really called quattro all wheel drive? I was pretty sure that was an Audi only name for the system... (end of the fourth paragraph)
Reply
Albert 2:05PM (4/26/2006)
#1, that's in referece to the A4 which they tested the Volvo against.
Reply
nate 2:07PM (4/26/2006)
cancel that, i totally misread that...
Reply
Chris G. 2:11PM (4/26/2006)
Nate, reread the article. It states that they chose Quattro with an Audi A4 2.0T, not with the Volvo.
Reply
Daniel 2:12PM (4/26/2006)
I had an s40 2.4i loaner car when my s60 T5 was in for an oil change, and I was less than impressed. it was loaded with leather, moonroof, etc, but still felt cheap compared to my S60. It also felt cramped inside, despite actually having MORE interior room than my s60.
And I paid $26,500 for my BRAND NEW S60 T5.... *cough*
Reply
MJL 2:12PM (4/26/2006)
I believe if you re-read the paragraph, the article states (correctly) that they were COMPARING the Volvo to the Audi with the 2.0 turbo, and opted for the quattro version of the Audi. The Volvo's all wheel drive system doesn't, to my knowledge, have a name -- only a trim level, the AWD version of the S40, S60, S80, and XC90 -- though it uses a Haldex clutch like the quattro.
Reply
Michael Karesh 2:18PM (4/26/2006)
On the upside, it feels like a premium car ought to, and not at all like the Mazda3 it shares a platform with.
On the downside, like all Volvos the steering is numb. And, as others have said, there's not much room inside.
My page for the S40, with links to a review and price comparisons: http://www.truedelta.com/models/s40.php
Reply
Andrew 2:26PM (4/26/2006)
The S40 and S60 are almost the same in every interior dimension except one: width. The S60 is more the 2 inches wider, makes it feel like a MUCH larger car.
Reply
Ryan 2:30PM (4/26/2006)
gag, Audi A4 is a million times better than this ford crap, Volvos used to REALLY good, back when they were own By Volvo, not by Ford.
Reply
Heidi 1:40PM (6/08/2007)
Obviously you didn't do your research. Ford only owns Volvo. They are not Fords- You can't even buy them at the same dealership. Their parts are not exchangeable.
JS 2:43PM (4/26/2006)
I actually own the FWD version of this car so I cannot speak to its handeling characteristics specifically but everything else is the same. The S60 is more plush inside but for us younger buyers, the S40 is where the party is. Peppier engine, Superb Stereo, Stylish Design, Comfortable Seats, Accent lighting, etc... are all there to impress mom & dad when you come home with it (as well as the women folk) There are qualms I have with it that I hope a service visit will fix (mainly software enging management related but nothing detrimental, just annoyances). Overall I like the ride and its comfortable for long trips (although I have never sat in the back for long trips) but I would recommend it to any of my friends.
Reply
VW-Guy 2:51PM (4/26/2006)
Yes, the S40 is so overpriced it's ridiculous. I went with a friend to look at one for her, we were both shocked at how overpriced it is for what it is. There are TONS of better cars out there.
"though it uses a Haldex clutch like the quattro"
The A4 certainly DOES NOT use a Haldex system - it's a TORSEN system. The TT uses Haldex.
Reply
Puff Chippy 2:56PM (4/26/2006)
Contrary to most enthusiast blogs, most Americans really don't want a little car like this or we'd already be driving them. $33k for that? Sure, that kind of money for a tiny little car may work for BMW where you have buyers willing to pay just so that they can tell their golf/shopping pals they they have a BMW but that won't fly in a Volvo. I've driven an S40 and was shocked at how flimsy it felt. Reminded me very much of the crummy Corolla's I used to get as loaners when I had my Lexus worked on. If this is the kind of car you really want then the Mazda3 is a much better value.
Reply
T. 3:02PM (4/26/2006)
Hmmmmm, I'll take the Mazdaspeed3 instead, thank you very much. :)
Reply
risingsun 3:18PM (4/26/2006)
I think the aero package is very subtle, and comparitively cheap compared to other brands' body cladding. Every time I look at this car I can't help but see a Mazda3 thanks to the very distinct proportions. I think the Mazda3 is kind of ugly, and it's obvious that they had to deal with this Volvo platform when they were styling it. The dimensions work for the Volvo, but not for the 3. Ditch the spoiler and the wheels. The A pillar has a good curve to it, and the whole canopy flows very nicely.
In my area, people will buy a Volvo to impress others just like a Bimmer or Benz. Volvo is seen as somewhat alternative or different, like Saab. With the big push for safety by every manufacturer now, Volvo's reputation helps the clout approach the other European brands.
Reply
CoffeeJedi 3:30PM (4/26/2006)
I want to see this comparo:
Volvo S40 T5 awd vs. Audi A3 3.2 quattro vs. Saab 9-2x Aero
the ultimate showdown of near-lux awd compacts
(though, to be fair, i guess, the Volvo should be the V50 seeing as the other 2 are hatchbacks)
Reply
ZenDriver 3:30PM (4/26/2006)
I owned an '05 S40 FWD without the turbo and it was the biggest automotive mistake I ever made. I had just turned in a 2002 BMW 325 coupe on lease and was looking to save some money while still getting a new vehicle warranty and staying with the whole compact European sedan gig. The first problem was that my (admittedly wide) foot would sometimes get caught under the break pedal. I wrote Volvo and they basically told me "Tough Luck." I went out and found a shop that modifies cars for folks with disabilities, got a quote and a written description of how they would fix the problem and wrote Volvo back asking for permission to modify the vehicle, as written, on MY dime, all I wanted was for Volvo to stand by the new vehicle warranty. Again, they told me they would simply not address the manner and would no longer reply to my letters.
Then the motor had a bearing failure at 4200 miles. The Volvo dealer accused me of "Driving the vehicle beyond it's capabilities." When I asked them to define that, they back peddled and came back a week later with "You didn't check the oil level" (they had checked the oil when the vehicle was limped into the shop making a horrendous ticking noise, it was fine when they wrote the intake paperwork). Finally, Volvo agreed to replace the engine as a "One time goodwill gesture." Adding more insult to the appalling service I received from Jim Fisher Volvo and Volvo Cars, the vehicle was returned to me with one of my CDs stuck in the CD player; the only solution was a $500 replacement for all the electronic components in the center dash and I had to pay for it until Volvo determined it wasn't my fault (which they eventually did). Ohh, and my salesman flat out lied when he said they could retrofit Sirius radio and an iPod connection kit- the S40 (because of the dashboard design) can't even accept a hard wired FM iPod input.
All in all, it was a mediocre car with a piss poor ownership experience.
Reply
sxates 4:28PM (4/26/2006)
I had one of these as a rental while my A4 was in the shop for some body work. Overall I like the S40--it was on my list when I bought the A4, but it just doesn't feel like as much car as the Audi. But then, the S40 is cheaper, by probably 4-5k. For me though, it was worth a bit more to have a car that had more prestige, and felt bigger and better built, and I think is more attractive styling-wise.
It's hard to discuss the S40 without talking about that cool waterfall center console. From photos I thought that it was really cool, but once you're sitting in the car it feels sort of like a gimmick because the rest of the interior design seems bland, and it doesn't really feel like a cohesive package.
So ultimately, I didn't regret my purchase of the A4 over the S40, but I think its a car that's worth its (lower) price.
Reply
Craig Weems 4:42PM (4/26/2006)
It's Ford's version of an Expedition: take a $15,000 vehicle (Mazda3 / F-150) add a bunch of crap that at manufacturer's cost comes to squat and sell it for $30,000. Were not refined for not drinking the Kool-aid? I dont think so.
Even Toyota and Nissan dont get away with the scam, they dont sell that many Sequoias and Armadas (based on Tundra/Titan).
Reply
Craig Weems 4:50PM (4/26/2006)
It's Ford's version of an Expedition: take a $15,000 vehicle (Mazda3 / F-150) add a bunch of crap that at manufacturer's cost comes to squat and sell it for $30,000. Were not refined for not drinking the Kool-aid? I dont think so.
Even Toyota and Nissan dont get away with the scam, they dont sell that many Sequoias and Armadas (based on Tundra/Titan).
Reply