2006 Volvo S40 T5 AWD in the Autoblog Garage Day 5
Much has been made in the comments about how much (or how little) the Volvo S40 and Mazda3 have in common. We think one particular comment by an Autoblog reader named Mike sums up our feelings on this debate: “Any comparison between the two must be coming from the unfamiliar.” It’s true, these two cars share a platform and various components but the job done differentiating them is far from badge reengineering. Their relationship is less Ford Five Hundred to Mercury Montego than it is Audi A4 to Volkswagen Jetta. We’re talking more than a new grille and taillamps here.
The C1 chassis certainly cleans up well wearing Volvo’s stubby-yet-strong proportions and Scandinavian interior, but does the S40’s on-pavement prowess finally settle any qualms created by its potentially $30k-plus pricetag?
The core of the S40’s fun factor can be found in its turbocharged 2.5L five-cylinder engine that produces 218 horsepower and 236 ft-lbs. of torque. Going with an odd number of cylinders is again one of those quirky, dare-to-be-different traits for which Volvo is well known, especially considering such engines in the past had a reputation for being unbalanced and thrashy.
Those characteristics cannot be applied to Volvo’s five-pot powerplant, which exhibits little harshness in its operation. In fact, for a sporty sedan the S40 T5 is remarkably quiet with engine noise a distant hum until WOT is applied. Volvo’s addition of a light-pressure turbo makes this powerplant feel like a torquey V6 under your toes with all of its 236 ft-lbs. of torque available at a low 1500 rpm. There’s a whisper of turbo lag but the turbine’s relatively small size ensures there’s no whiplash when it comes online.
Our tester’s fuel mileage is rated at 20 city/29 highway, which isn’t bad considering the extra 130 lbs. added by the all-wheel drive system and various other gravity-challenged safety and luxury amenities. Total tonnage is up to 3,447 lbs. for the T5 AWD model, about 169 lbs. more than FWD T5.
Speaking of that AWD system, it’s a bit of a misnomer as the majority of time power is being routed almost entirely to the front wheels. During our dry week with the S40 T5 AWD the car exhibited all the normal FWD tendencies with understeer occurring when the car was pushed in corners. The AWD system is not a performance feature of the S40 T5, but rather a safety feature meant for sure footing in inclement weather. Though the 130 lb. penalty for its presence isn’t severe, those seeking the fastest S40 should opt for the non-AWD model with the six-speed manual.
Our S40 came with said six-speed manual transmission, an inclusion about which we were a bit conflicted. Given the choice we’ll always go standard, but the S40’s clutch was either instant-on or instant-off, which made enjoying the slick shifting six-speed a rarity. With practice the clutch can be mastered, but if you break concentration before the light turns green expect a jolt when leaving the line.
Once underway the tractable engine offers up power in a wide swath and shifting around 4,000 rpm under WOT generates a satisfying surge into the next gear. The S40 T5 AWD gets a tighter suspension than the 2.4i model with anti-roll bars front and aft that control the car well enough in the curves. The speed-sensitive rack-and-pinion steering is accurate as well, though at around-town speeds the power assist disconnects the driver too much from the road.
Though we’ve dialed back any expectations of the S40 T5 AWD being a thoroughbred sports sedan, it excelled in another area we weren’t expecting. On the highway at cruising speed (or above) the T5 AWD behaves like a car with a much longer wheelbase. The small sedan tracts straight and true while hardly flinching at crosswinds, and the suspension’s ability to soak up broken pavement was a surprise.
All this still begs the question whether or not the essence of an S40 could be found in a Mazda3 for $10k less. We think not, as the Volvo’s 2.5T five-cylinder, all-wheel drive capability, and suspension tuning cannot be had in Mazda’s take on the C1 platform. But wait, here comes the MazdaSpeed3 with a 250-hp 2.3T four-cylinder, six-speed stick from the MazdaSpeed6 and a price tag that will likely fall between $23k and $25k. Though the MazdaSpeed3 lacks all-wheel drive, the Volvo system didn’t convince us that it was worth the extra outlay anyway. In any case, with the advent of the MazdaSpeed3 we’re thinking Volvo's best move would be to create an S40R in the low $30k range that offers a similar or better level of performance as its sport compact sibling from Mazda with more safety, luxury and technology. We've found the range-topping S40 T5 AWD to be a good car for its price, but it'd be even better if the sticker stayed below $30k.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
jscro 12:33PM (5/03/2006)
The Audi A4 and Jetta are not related, it WAS the Passat. They'll be seperate platforms with their respective new models now though.
Reply
bhtooefr 12:37PM (5/03/2006)
The 1995-1998 Audi A4 was the same as the 1998-2005 Passat.
Maybe a better comparison would be the Audi A3 and the Volkswagen GTI and the Rabbit?
Reply
Bob 12:43PM (5/03/2006)
You kidding?
Do you think there is ONE person who is not an automotive writer who will be comparison shopping a Mazda3 and a Volvo?
How about using the space to compare the S40 to cars it actually competes with?
Reply
bhtooefr 12:49PM (5/03/2006)
Well, I imagine that the theory is that if one believes that the Mazda3 is the same car as the Volvo S40, they'll spend their money on a car that isn't a cheap Japanese car rebadged as a Volvo. (Never mind that it's actually the other way around (in addition to there being more than just rebadging) - it's Volvo's platform...)
Now, I haven't driven either car in question. I've ridden in a friend's 2006 Mazda3. She likes it, but doesn't like how much electronic crap it has (for a low-end model), nor the fact that first gear is useless on the Sport AT when in manual mode (and it drops to 1st when coming to a complete stop). As a passenger, it seems like a nice car.
Reply
Michael Karesh 1:00PM (5/03/2006)
The Volvo and Mazda feel nothing alike, which isn't entirely a good thing for the Volvo. The Mazda steers and handles better, while the Volvo feels like the premium car it is.
My review of the S40: http://www.epinions.com/content_159675420292
Reply
araemo 1:19PM (5/03/2006)
I nearly bought a Mazda3, and it is a nice little car. The 2.3L with a manual has enough pickup for fun drives, but it's nothing amazing. I haven't driven the Volvo, but in my research I was informed of this general breakdown of the Mazda3's design: Volvo did the chassis/safety features, Ford did the suspension setup(though I would assume the geometry was more defined by the chassis..), and Mazda did the engine/drivetrain. Volvo has their own drivetrain in the S40, and likely their own suspension too, so there is very little Mazda in the car. The Mazda handles very well for its size and price range though, and the Mazdaspeed3 will likely be even better. If you want any of the features that make a Volvo a Volvo, buy the Volvo... the two cars don't really compete, and they really aren't the same car.
Reply
Paul Guinnessy 1:41PM (5/03/2006)
Only thing I didn't like about the Mazada 3 was the loud road noise that comes into the cabin. That and the very dodgy sales staff that seems to be keen on selling you the car they want you to buy, instead of the car you want to buy at the dealer on Cherry Hill Rd, Silver Spring.
Reply
Ben 1:56PM (5/03/2006)
Karesh guy: Do you even drive these cars? Your reviews read like you pull specs from Edmunds and fill in the gaps with a few poorly worded sentances.
I suspect the only reason you post to epinions, and a handful of other blogs (including this one) is to push your $24.95 "reliability package" for your circa 1999 designed website.
Frankly, i'm (i'm sure i'm not alone) getting sick of seeing this loosly veiled spam on this board for EVERY damn article.
Please, do us all a favor, and not post your crap for a week or so. Give us all a needed break.
Reply
Ryan 2:20PM (5/03/2006)
#7
"Only thing I didn't like about the Mazada 3 was the loud road noise that comes into the cabin."
-I own a Mazda 3, love the car, but DAMN that is the TRUTH, you will never be in a louder car for it's price tag (I paid 22k) it is horrible. The only other issues I have is Mazda's thin paint job, chips way to easy and the sheetmetal, it's thin as paper!
Reply
John Hritz 2:29PM (5/03/2006)
With regard to the AWD T5. I decided to forego the weight penalty and the upcharge for the AWD on my V50. Instead, I chose the yaw control option which costs less, adds less weight and improves the gas mileage. In addition, I siped my tires to improve grip during the winter. I can recommend this combination.
Reply
Ben 2:33PM (5/03/2006)
Mazda3 is a great car but I don't think its worth 22K. For that you could get a decently equipped Accord coupe, VW GTI, or VE Passat 6-speed.
Reply
Ryan 2:42PM (5/03/2006)
#10
"10. Mazda3 is a great car but I don't think its worth 22K. For that you could get a decently equipped Accord coupe, VW GTI, or VE Passat 6-speed."
-I have posted this before and people don't believe it, but the BASE price of the HIGHEST trim level is almost 20k (Gran Touring Trim), once you check every available option, like nav, HID lights, rain sensing wipers, heated leather, and accessories it tops out kinda close to 30k, I think around 27k source: http://www.mazda3.com
Reply
Michael Karesh 2:46PM (5/03/2006)
Ben,
I'm sure you're not alone. But I'm also sure you're not in the majority.
If you want to make accusations, at least take the time to do some research. Or is that too much work?
1. I started writing for Epinions in 1999. I didn't launch my own site, to do things I couldn't do at Epinions, until 2004.
2. I have yet to charge anyone anything for the use of my site, and won't mind if I never do. As my site and reviews make clear to most people, the fee is there to encourage people to participate in the research, as it won't be charged to anyone who participates.
3. So, which post contributed more to this discussion, mine on the differences between the Mazda and Volvo, or yours that merely complains about my post and pretends to speak for everyone?
Reply
Ryan 2:51PM (5/03/2006)
#12
Hell, if anyone wants to see REAL spamming, take a look at my e-mail INBOX, this is not.
Reply
Ryan 2:57PM (5/03/2006)
#12
Do you still need another Mazda 3 owner?! :-) I would be happy to give information on mine (purchased new in 04 and now have almost 20k on it.) If not, no biggie.
Reply
a4 owner 2:58PM (5/03/2006)
how could a car that ended production in '98 be the same car as the passat up till '05. do you mean that the b5 platform used by both audi and vw was still being used by the passat until 05? i asked because it seems odd that vw would use the b5 chassis while audi was producing b6 cars since 2002.
Reply
kev 3:19PM (5/03/2006)
Ben | re: poor English from others: sentence has no "a" dude.
On topic | I've driven the Mazda 3 hatch and liked the stock handling very much though the 2.3 four seemed a bit lacking the mid-range. I bet the upcoming Mazdaspeed 3 version will certainly cure that, but with 280 ft/pds of torque and FWD might create its own host of problems.
I've been behind the wheel of the Volvo 2.5T in a V70 and under hard acceleration is rough, loud and has some pretty mean torque steer too. I hope Mazda does a better job at making the power delivery more linear and less like the Volvo's On/Off switch powerband.
Reply
bhtooefr 5:25PM (5/03/2006)
#7 Paul Guinnessy: I didn't notice the road noise being bad in the Mazda3 that the friend of mine has... then again, I'll admit, my perceptions of road noise are skewed, as I drive a 1985 Volkswagen Jetta diesel. Transmits every little noise straight into the cabin... and loudly. ;)
#16 a4 owner: Simple, when VW uses Audi's sloppy seconds, it means less engineering cost to them. And, in 2001.5, they facelifted it, creating the "B5.5" Passat. Still very much a B5, though.
Reply
Michael Karesh 6:39PM (5/03/2006)
bhtooefr,
I know what you mean. I drive a Protege5. Almost anything else sounds quiet in comparison, including the Mazda3. But compared to most cars the Mazda3 is fairly loud inside.
The Volvo, in contrast, has that hushed, fluid feel I personally associate with a luxury car.
Reply
Fabulo 7:03PM (5/03/2006)
Now to fuel the comparison between Mazda3 and Volvo S40, I thought this was a typo when I read this thing is 3447 lbs. A compact? 3447 lbs? That's a heavy pig (granted, that's the heaviest edition) but still, it's just about 85% of the weight of a (much larger) Dodge Charger V8 (and at 4031 lbs that's a really heavy pig - I picked this Charger as a comparison arbitrarily because I know it's heavy)
The Mazda3 is between 2685 and 2829 depending on trim and gearbox (that's 66% and 70% of a charger for those who are interested).
I know the volvo is probably loaded with very heavy safety equipment,like bars of lead to make it slower and reinforced bumber, extra airbags for your ankles and double thick bullet proof glass. But still, it qualifies as heavy in my book.
Ben, here's the trick I use, for every comment I scan, I start with the bottom, check for posters I don't want to read from, and skip to the next. It's called "the semi-automated brain filter" and saved a lot of grief like:
This car is very different from the other cars I review. Please check my review at XXX. My own web site: YYY.
Reply