CTC Review: 2008 Volvo V50 T5

[D.W.]

At the 2008 Vancouver AutoShow, I had the chance to sit in both the Volvo S40 and V50. Although both the sedan and wagon are nice to look at, with their traditional Volvo creases, they sacrafice a lot of passenger comfort and cargo utility. For example, although the V50 does have a larger cargo area, the wagon has a very low loading height. Consequently, loading that large TV in the back is not an easy task, as you have to bend down a LOT to slide anything into this small car. For 32K, I can confidently say that the Volvo V50 and its sedan twin are both overpriced and totally not worth the money over their platform mate aka Mazda3 wagon. To save yourself some trouble in trying to justify buying a car, that barely has enough room to seat 2 people comfortably (The rear seat is REALLY small, and it doesn't matter if you push the front seats forward past the B-pillar) because it has less headroom than a subcompact car (Hey, the Yaris sedan is pretty comfortable for its price, and it's stylish!). Don't expect anything other than a car that moves, as I've test-driven the Volvo V50, and it's noisy for a premium car. People who buy a Volvo V50 only THINK they need the so-called "extra-space", but would you really compromise your rear-window visibility just to bring something "big" home. Forget about it! Stop driving and get off the road.  

[dasiuyan]

I think Volvo has a problem - their cars are moving into the premium range, but the image and range of their cars don't fit the likes of Mercedes or BMW. Subaru, and company very similar to Volvo also has a similar problem.

I can't agree more with that. Subaru and Volvo are very similar company, their product line work similarly, same platform with different engine size and body shape. I believe many of their car sold because their image on safety (Volvo) or AWD (Subaru). Their pricing is ridiculous when you climb from base model or with options. However, you don't see them screaming to cut price for selling more cars, like a domestic brand do. I remember one of forum member state in another thread that these kind of company are comfortable with it niche player status. They are fine with selling small number of car by earning the highest marginal profit. They don't mind to sell less in higher trim model, they are just there for company's image. I didn't observer enough Volvo on the road, but, how much S40/V50 really do have that much option on them? I doubt. Some people just like the car in its base form, given the car give them a good image (AWD/Safety features), they don't mind they could be better off by getting another brand by same cash. You may ask, how many people are like that? you can judge simply by referring to the sale figures of these car companies.

[vwcedric]

3 years ago I was shopping for a new volvo for my boss.  After incentives, it was the same price to lease a V70 AWD then a V50 T5 AWD.  This month I'm shopping for a new volvo again, and the new V70 cheaper than the V50 with the current 7k rebate on the V70.

[486]

I was checking out S40 and S60. My verdict: small stylish cars of medium quality and cheap interior with premium price. Volvo dealer wanted to start negotiation at $2000 over the MSRP. I suspect their customer base consist of loyal Volvo enthusiasts. At that price point, it makes better sense to get BMW or MB. More bling for you buck. If you are not after the bling, then Honda/Nissan will do just fine.

[johngenx]

Subaru was on the verge of bankruptcy until Toyota bought out GM's shares and is now infusing them with cash.  Why?  Subaru is NOT a premium car maker and has little to offer the non-snowbelt US market.

I love Subaru products, but they need to revamp their line to take advantage of high gas prices and use Toyota production know-how to get their production costs down.  Subaru needs a high fuel economy line, and they need it now.

Volvo has issues.  However, Volvo was always a little more expensive than a "normal" car.  Today, though, what does Volvo offer for real value?  The S40/V50 line is nice, but the prices are way too high.  Judging by sales #'s, people are opting for Lexus value/reliability or BMW cache/driving experience.

[MKII]

wow.  Better safety ratings eh?  So you honestly believe you stand a better chance of walking away from a severe accident in an Audi A4 Avant FWD, the Audi A3, the Saab 9-3 SportCombi, etc. etc.

Okay.  Fine if that's what you think.  But if you've ever seen how well a Volvo holds up during an accident then you might change your tune.

Having owned 3 Volvo's I agree that Volvo safety standards and philosphy is geared towards real life situations not some institutes testing standards.

Good explanation here,
"Real World safety is Volvo's highest priority. It's a dedication we have demonstrated time and again through the application of industry-leading expertise and modern facilities to enhance safety and pioneer our new safety systems. Designing vehicles with Real World safety is Volvo's methodology and priority. Excelling in one particular nation's governmental or third party tests is not.

In third-party tests, such as the recent American IIHS Top Safety Pick Awards, or the NHSTA Crash Tests, vehicles are ranked based on the performance of front, side, and rear crashes. These rankings are based on results from one test vehicle, at one impact speed, and one angle of impact. While any form of testing can be a positive step, safety is a MUCH more complex subject than just one single crash test.

Volvo builds vehicles with safety systems developed from data contained in an Accident Research Database that dates back to the early 1970s. This database contains the intricate details of more than 35,000 collisions involving Volvo vehicles with more than 50,000 occupants.

Rest assured that this information is used to design our vehicles with safety systems to meet or exceed world class requirements. More importantly, it enables us to build vehicles that help protect occupants in many Real World situations, not just one specific crash.

Consider, for a moment, the following analogy for Volvo's holistic approach to safety:

A decathlon athlete must perform well in different 10 events to win first
prize. While that means they are not "world class" in one particular
category, it also means they are the BEST all-around athlete.
That is how Volvo views the field of safety. While each government and third party test will only address one type of impact, at one speed, in one event, Volvo considers the consequences of real world factors.

For example, if a vehicle is hit from the side, then pushed into a ditch, how well will it protect the occupants? Or how will a vehicle fair in a side impact followed by a rear collision? The vehicle should be able to help protect occupants in many different situations, not just one test into one barrier.

This holistic commitment has led Volvo to equip its vehicles with an extensive list of standard safety features:

* IC (Inflatable Curtain) to help protect the head of all outboard
occupants.

* IC was a World first for Volvo in 1998.

* Pyrotechnic pretension seat belts.

* SIPS (Side Impact Protection System) body structure with extra
reinforcement in the doors, door pillars and dashboard to improve
protection in a side collision.

* SIPS was a world first for Volvo in 1995.

* SIPS air bag for front row occupants.

* Volvo's research indicates that SIPS and the SIPS air bag help
reduce injuries by approximately 57%.

* Adaptive driver and front passenger airbags that monitor the force of
the impact and help adapt inflation to the severity of the collision.

* WHIPS (Whiplash Protection System).

* Volvo's research and independent studies performed by IIHS and the
Swedish Insurance Company Folksam show that WHIPS helps to reduce
injuries by up to 50%.

* ABS/EBD (Antilock Braking System/Electronic Brakeforce Distribution)
regulates the brake force to assist the driver in maintaining control
of the vehicle under emergency braking.

* RSC (Roll Stability Control) is designed to assist the driver in
maintaining control during an extreme manoeuvre could lead to a
roll-over incident.

* RSC was a world first for Volvo in 2002.
Volvo will continue to innovate and be one of the safest cars, based on decades of innovation and ongoing technological leadership. If you require additional information about safety, please contact your local Volvo Representative.

- Clive Bengtsson

Volvo Crash Tester"

Also agree that Volvo is a step up in segment from VW, and my opinion is based on owning both VW and Volvo products.
I know many in North America do not perceive Volvo cars in the same light as Audi, BMW etc, but IMO they are in the same level with a very different consumer demographic(rational,intellectual consumer), which Volvo has swayed too far away from and trying to market themselves more towards the consumer who is demanding the Germanic dynamics.
Plus as I mentioned before the way they are offering the bundled option packages, instead of stand alone options.

The other mistake IMO Volvo Canada did was to take out the base models S60 & V70 2.4L variants, which had starting price points of $36,000 & $38,000. With this price segment taken out the S40/V50 where slotted in at $30,000 and had to fill a large gap to the current base S60/V70 2.5T starting at $41,000.
The S40/V50 are not perceived strong enough value by the consumer to fill an $11,000 and up difference.

Volvo has to go back to offering their type of consumer the ability to build and spec the car exactly how they want it, from a very base trim level. There niche market is too small to play in the same game the way BMW or Audi market there cars in North America.

@ Wing,  it would be of interest to me to get your thoughts on what you think regarding the cost difference between your Mazda3 and the V50. Does the V50 give your a perception of being entry level luxury , higher engineering, etc for the price difference of the base model MSRP, not the full jam MSRP you are driving as the tester.

[conwelpic]

Volvo - that brings back some memories.  I've owned three Volvo's, two used one new.
The new one was a 1968 Volvo 142S and (still got the invoice) base price $3140 + radio $75 + 5 Pirelli Tires in exchange $140 + Sales tax $167.75 + license $15 total $3537.75.  These days they are so far out of reach to the average buyer.  However, I always remember how good the seats were, the best I can ever remember.  Even back then it had three-point seats belts as standard and fully reclining seats (even my '86 Olds didn't have that) and a huge trunk!  They were in a lot of ralley's back then and seemed to be 'bullet-proof'.
I remember on the test drive that the salesman showed me how well it drove when he took it into ditches and across open field lots - impressive!  Also remember this long gear shift and the large grab handle on the face of the dash on the passengers side.

I wonder if a lot of recent problems with Volvo started when Ford bought them out, but hasn't that been sold to someone else now?

[wing]

@ Wing,  it would be of interest to me to get your thoughts on what you think regarding the cost difference between your Mazda3 and the V50. Does the V50 give your a perception of being entry level luxury , higher engineering, etc for the price difference of the base model MSRP, not the full jam MSRP you are driving as the tester.

My Mazda3 was something like $25k before taxes.  Assuming the base V50 at $32k, that's a good jump $7k.  Is it worth it to me? Hard question, I don't think so.  But does it feel better built?  Yes, the Volvo feels like a vault, the Mazda feels more like a tin can.

[JT816]

Simply put, I think it really is about the price for the Volvo, reliability issues, and perceived image. Pricing wise, for a car/wagon (S40/V50) of this size with the "standard" equipment that it has, I think it is probably about 15% overpriced (MSRP) in the Canadian market. Add some options and I would say it is about 20-22% overpriced. The starting price of the Volvo S40/V50 is just fine, the problem stems from the lack of standard options for a supposed premium/luxury vehicle and the pricey optional packages (considering the content).

It really was the last 8-9 years or so of when Volvo started escalating their prices to being overpriced. My aunt's 1999 S70 was just less than $40,000 on the road with extended warranty, leather, sunroof, power everything, etc. The replacement vehicle of similar size, S60, with similar options is about $12,000 more on the road (granted I didn't take into account inflation).

[Blueprint]

@ wing

Obvious for most of us, but for the "others" you should mention in your review that the S40 / V50 are platform mates to the Mazda 3.

For the record, I always liked the small Volvos, but still think they should be priced on par with mid-grade Jettas, as they are in the US.

Two Volvos owned by co-workers (S80, XC90) have proven to be complete lemons, and expensive ones to maintain, too.

[ar_ken]

Not trying to start a war here, but I wonder why are people so caught up in the fact that the S40/V50 is a "platform-mate" of the Mazda3? So what if it is? It's not like it's a Mazda3 w/ Volvo skin... same situation with the 9-3 and G6/Malibu/Aura etc....

Either people are mixing it up with badge engineering or just like to nit-pick. Not many cars have a completely unique platform all to themselves nowadays... they exists but certainly is not the "norm".....

p.s. I do think the S40/V50's are overpriced, I do think the 9-3 gives better value if you have a Swedish fetish like I do.. 

[si]

I enjoyed my time with a 6MT V50 T5 AWD... but it was a bit anemic at speed.  Must have been weighed down by its price tag

[Guy]

A $47K V50 does not make any sense. it is way overpriced for what you get. I have to disagree about the relaibility however. My 2004 XC90 had some issues with wheel bearings and ball joints but while not perfect, I would not call it a lemon. My wifes 04 S60 has been perfectly reliable since day 1. At 68K km, all we have to report are a couple burnt bulbs. That's it. The alarm sensor just got replaced in my 07 XC70. I had 2 bad tires on delivery but again nothing else.

My wife and I have owned Volvo's since the 1988 740 turbo wagon we bought then. The XC70 is our 7th. The quality and reliability has improved on every Volvo's we bought.

Being eligible to Ford's X-plan I do get a break on the price, without it I would have looked elswhere. Well I did, and will again in September when the S60 lease is up.

[dasiuyan]

A $47K V50 does not make any sense. it is way overpriced for what you get. I have to disagree about the relaibility however. My 2004 XC90 had some issues with wheel bearings and ball joints but while not perfect, I would not call it a lemon. My wifes 04 S60 has been perfectly reliable since day 1. At 68K km, all we have to report are a couple burnt bulbs. That's it. The alarm sensor just got replaced in my 07 XC70. I had 2 bad tires on delivery but again nothing else.

My wife and I have owned Volvo's since the 1988 740 turbo wagon we bought then. The XC70 is our 7th. The quality and reliability has improved on every Volvo's we bought.

Everyone has a different definition on reliability; you just show me the difference between you and me.

[Guy]

A $47K V50 does not make any sense. it is way overpriced for what you get. I have to disagree about the relaibility however. My 2004 XC90 had some issues with wheel bearings and ball joints but while not perfect, I would not call it a lemon. My wifes 04 S60 has been perfectly reliable since day 1. At 68K km, all we have to report are a couple burnt bulbs. That's it. The alarm sensor just got replaced in my 07 XC70. I had 2 bad tires on delivery but again nothing else.

My wife and I have owned Volvo's since the 1988 740 turbo wagon we bought then. The XC70 is our 7th. The quality and reliability has improved on every Volvo's we bought.

Everyone has a different definition on reliability; you just show me the difference between you and me.

Can you expand? 2 burnt bulbs in 4 years make the S60 a lemon?

[tpl]

I read it as ONLY 2 burnt bulbs made it very reliable...

[dasiuyan]

A $47K V50 does not make any sense. it is way overpriced for what you get. I have to disagree about the relaibility however. My 2004 XC90 had some issues with wheel bearings and ball joints but while not perfect, I would not call it a lemon. My wifes 04 S60 has been perfectly reliable since day 1. At 68K km, all we have to report are a couple burnt bulbs. That's it. The alarm sensor just got replaced in my 07 XC70. I had 2 bad tires on delivery but again nothing else.

My wife and I have owned Volvo's since the 1988 740 turbo wagon we bought then. The XC70 is our 7th. The quality and reliability has improved on every Volvo's we bought.

Everyone has a different definition on reliability; you just show me the difference between you and me.

Can you expand? 2 burnt bulbs in 4 years make the S60 a lemon?

expand The XC90

[dasiuyan]

A $47K V50 does not make any sense. it is way overpriced for what you get. I have to disagree about the relaibility however. My 2004 XC90 had some issues with wheel bearings and ball joints but while not perfect, I would not call it a lemon. My wifes 04 S60 has been perfectly reliable since day 1. At 68K km, all we have to report are a couple burnt bulbs. That's it. The alarm sensor just got replaced in my 07 XC70. I had 2 bad tires on delivery but again nothing else.

My wife and I have owned Volvo's since the 1988 740 turbo wagon we bought then. The XC70 is our 7th. The quality and reliability has improved on every Volvo's we bought.

Everyone has a different definition on reliability; you just show me the difference between you and me.

Can you expand? 2 burnt bulbs in 4 years make the S60 a lemon?

but honestly, although there are discrepancy on the definition of reliability, I think your s60 are pretty good on this issue... but u also stated a very good point, imo, your aren't owning the car, u just lease it. i believe personally, lease a European car is a way better bet than owning and maintaining it, especially when it is going to have more than 100000km reading on it...

[Bullet Blue]

Not trying to start a war here, but I wonder why are people so caught up in the fact that the S40/V50 is a "platform-mate" of the Mazda3? So what if it is? It's not like it's a Mazda3 w/ Volvo skin... same situation with the 9-3 and G6/Malibu/Aura etc....

Either people are mixing it up with badge engineering or just like to nit-pick. Not many cars have a completely unique platform all to themselves nowadays... they exists but certainly is not the "norm".....

p.s. I do think the S40/V50's are overpriced, I do think the 9-3 gives better value if you have a Swedish fetish like I do.. 

Agreed, it's not uncommon and the Mazda 3 is definitely not in the same category.

[spacecadet_cc]

Wow - and I thought I was the only one who felt this way... I fall into the overpriced camp, myself. I have owned a couple of MkIV VWs (Golf and Jetta), currently drive an '05 A4 and my business partner just moved from a Mazda 3 to a Volvo C30, so I think I have all of the bases covered in this discussion!
When I was moving on from the Jetta, I was deciding between the S40 and the A4. As far a s feel goes, the S40, after numerous tests felt like the Jetta in size and build quality. The T5 was much peppier than the Jetta (but felt surprisingly similar to the 1.8T A4 @170HP). Was the interior as nice as a BMW - I think so. As nice as the Audi - not even close. The interior felt very, very similar to the quality of the Jetta (materials, feel of buttons). The S40 had the much nicer centre console, as does the C30. When I drive my biz partner's C30, it simply feels like a step down from the A4.
On the other hand, the C30/S40 is by far a better feeling car than the Mazda 3.
The clincher was that to get a performance-oriented Volvo - with T5, AWD, sport pack, 18" wheels, I was looking at a $46,000 car. The A4, which had the performance stuff on it too, was just $2000 more. That includes the beautiful interior, Torsen-AWD not Haldex AWD (not to start THAT debate - hahah), proper sport suspension (not sport 'tuned'). Oh - the killer was the 9% lease rate that put the slightly cheaper Volvo almost $150/month more expensive than the Audi.

The Volvo safety aspect kept me on the edge, though. I WANT to believe it, although the crash-test ratings are surprisingly similar to the other cars here. But I appreciate what MKII posted and that is the stuff that makes me lean away from the traditional test scores.

Also, for the record, we have had very good luck with all of the cars - VWs, Audi, Mazda. We'll see with the Volvo - only had that for 2 weeks. But I have friends who have bad problems with all of those makes, so I think it is just luck of the draw.

I am a marketer/advertiser and I think that Volvo would be able to really cash in by marketing themselves BETWEEN VW and Audi. 'Better than a VW'. I really think they are. Put their low price point in the middle of VW pricing and their loaded price point at the Audi entry point and this would be a winner. I also like the comment about 'intelligent' / different type of consumer - that is a winning strategy.

BTW - I thought the C30 was overpriced, but it was my partner's choice. I would have gone for a GTi, myself, but I care about performance and style and she is only looking for style (the C30 does look way more stylish).