CTC Review: 2008 Volvo V50 T5

[jww]

I realize that Vovlo's reputation is about ridiculously expensive cars. Nevertheless, I have always been a big -- no check that -- very big fan of the V50 from the very first time I sat in one just over 2 years ago. I get that Volvos aren't everyone's cup-o-tee, but I have never had any complaints. We owned a 1982 DL back in the early 90's. This car was solid as a tank, drove really well, and was nothing short of cavernous in both the cabin and the trunk. Sure it was costly to fix when you had to replace major components, but good golly it was a great car for us. Towed a lightweight tent trailer all over the north eastern seaboard of the US a couple of times. My only complaint? No a/c, cruise or radio. Great memories of that car, though.

[Thinking Out Loud]

I've always perceived the Swedish twins of Volvo and SAAB as assuming themselves as nordic equivalents of Mercedes and BMW. 

Through the 1980's and early 90's as a rabid subscriber to R&T, C&D, MT and nascent Automobile magazines, S & V were recognized as competitively priced but unthreatening to the assumed teutonic-twosome of the autobahn.   

Approaching 2010, where Rabbit GTI's, Civic SI's and newer MazdaSpeed 3s are overlapping lower end Volvos and SAABs with performance to spare, competition has stiffened....and NOW with Lexus, Infiniti and Acura in the mix that never existed in the 80's. 

When you are looking at what's in your price range - whatever that happens to be - Volvo and SAAB seem oblivious in their pricing strategy to acknowedge that they have competition. 

Hyundai's strategy has kicked a$$ - product value.  LEARN.   

[Mitlov]

Volvo fans defend Volvo's good-but-not-excellent crash test scores by saying, essentially, that Volvo does not teach to the test, whereas other companies do.  There are two problems with this. 

(1)  I've never seen any evidence that Subaru, Volkswagen, and Audi simply engineer their cars to do well in the tests, that Audi and Subaru engineers don't account for real-world safety in car design.  That's pure speculation by Volvo fans and Volvo PR people.

(2)  Teaching to the test doesn't work in academics because one can be completely ignorant of, say, Canadian history despite being a studied pro at US history.  They're independent.  However, a car's structural resistance to being broadsided at 40 mph is interconnected with its structural resistance to being broadsided at 60 mph.  It's also interconnected with its structural resistance to being broadsided and then knocked into a ditch, or being broadsided and then rear-ended.  Volvo says "well the A3 may hold up better when broadsided at 40 mph, but what happens if it then rolls into a ditch?"  Well, in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, I suspect that the car that holds up better to that initial impact will continue to hold up better as it rolls into the ditch, right?

If it's really true that Audi and Subaru are "teaching to the test" and Volvo isn't, Volvo should prove it.  Take some of these hypothetical situations and show the world what happens.  Hit a V50 from two sides, hit an A3 from two sides, and post the results on YouTube.  If the Volvo holds up better, I'll be convinced that maybe Audi is merely teaching to the test.  Until then, I'm inclined to believe that the boxer that can endure one hit better is also the boxer who can endure two hits better.

[mmret]

Mitlov, this is too much logic for a Friday night.

Might it be that Volvo doesn't have the funds they need to really stay atop the safety heap? Crash testing cars can get pricey I'm sure.

[MKII]

Volvo fans defend Volvo's good-but-not-excellent crash test scores by saying, essentially, that Volvo does not teach to the test, whereas other companies do.  There are two problems with this. 

(1)  I've never seen any evidence that Subaru, Volkswagen, and Audi simply engineer their cars to do well in the tests, that Audi and Subaru engineers don't account for real-world safety in car design.  That's pure speculation by Volvo fans and Volvo PR people.

(2)  Teaching to the test doesn't work in academics because one can be completely ignorant of, say, Canadian history despite being a studied pro at US history.  They're independent.  However, a car's structural resistance to being broadsided at 40 mph is interconnected with its structural resistance to being broadsided at 60 mph.  It's also interconnected with its structural resistance to being broadsided and then knocked into a ditch, or being broadsided and then rear-ended.  Volvo says "well the A3 may hold up better when broadsided at 40 mph, but what happens if it then rolls into a ditch?"  Well, in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, I suspect that the car that holds up better to that initial impact will continue to hold up better as it rolls into the ditch, right?

If it's really true that Audi and Subaru are "teaching to the test" and Volvo isn't, Volvo should prove it.  Take some of these hypothetical situations and show the world what happens.  Hit a V50 from two sides, hit an A3 from two sides, and post the results on YouTube.  If the Volvo holds up better, I'll be convinced that maybe Audi is merely teaching to the test.  Until then, I'm inclined to believe that the boxer that can endure one hit better is also the boxer who can endure two hits better.

I do not think anybody has said  that Audi or Subaru do not "teach to the test". But were are the other auto manufacturers stating such philosphy?

I think Volvo has proved there point over and over, you just need to google and read many articles from Volvo and 3rd party articles that have been written regarding Volvo's high tech crash test facility, the Accident Response Team Volvo has in Sweden, and Volvo saved my life stories. http://www.volvocanada.com/WhyVolvo/SafetyFirsts.aspx?lng=2
and here http://www.volvocars.com/us/footer/about/VolvoSavedMyLifeClub/Pages/default.aspx
and here http://www.volvocars.com/intl/experience/Pages/safety.aspx

I understand a bunch of written brewhaha doesn't prove anything, and the only real proof is what happens in a real accident.
Personally I cannot give you any proof because I was never involved in any accidents in my 3 Volvo cars,  but I have spoken with quite a few that were very glad they had a Volvo wrapped around them at the time of their accidents , which has made them believe all the Volvo safety propaganda.

Now show me some of the auto makers that even put out such info for the public to view.
I do not doubt the other cars you mention as being not as safe or more safe then a Volvo car, I was just adding info for the posters to educate themselves about Volvo safety philosphy. As it appears many here doubt Volvo cars being as safe as the other manufacturers.

Proof indeed.  What are you a lawyer or something

Seems wing has grown to appreciate the wee V50 by the comments he has written on day 3. I feel Volvo is the type of car that the more time spent with them the more you start to appreciate them.

So wing you do feel the V50 is really an entry level lux type car, and technically much more car then its C1 cousin the Mazda3, whom so many here have said is really the same car, why spend more for the V50. (again speaking about the lead in V50 pricing.)

[Mitlov]

I do not think anybody has said  that Audi or Subaru do not "teach to the test". But were are the other auto manufacturers stating such philosphy?

I think Volvo has proved there point over and over, you just need to google and read many articles from Volvo and 3rd party articles that have been written regarding Volvo's high tech crash test facility, the Accident Response Team Volvo has in Sweden, and Volvo saved my life stories. http://www.volvocanada.com/WhyVolvo/SafetyFirsts.aspx?lng=2
and here http://www.volvocars.com/us/footer/about/VolvoSavedMyLifeClub/Pages/default.aspx
and here http://www.volvocars.com/intl/experience/Pages/safety.aspx

I understand a bunch of written brewhaha doesn't prove anything, and the only real proof is what happens in a real accident.

You're right.  The fact that Volvo has chosen to market itself on safety (starting a "Volvo saved my life club" and all) doesn't actually prove anything besides smart marketing.  And the fact that Volvo may have been an industry leader in crash tests 20 years ago does not prove that the V50 (and other P1 Volvos like the S40 and C30) are any better than their current competitors.

Personally I cannot give you any proof because I was never involved in any accidents in my 3 Volvo cars,  but I have spoken with quite a few that were very glad they had a Volvo wrapped around them at the time of their accidents , which has made them believe all the Volvo safety propaganda.

Now show me some of the auto makers that even put out such info for the public to view.

I'm glad that the people you've met survived the accidents they were in.  But remember that there are legions of people out there who survived accidents because they were in a Subaru, or a Volkswagen.  It's one thing for a person to say "I survived a scary crash in a Volvo, so I trust Volvo."  That's fine.  But I get mad when they say "I'll bet I wouldn't have fared as well in a Jetta or a Passat," because there is NO objective basis for that statement.

You correctly point out that no manufacturer has posted back-to-back safety tests on YouTube like I challenged Volvo to do.  The difference, though, is that most manufacturers, unlike Volvo, don't scoff at the back-to-back safety tests that ARE out there: IIHS and NHTSA.  If Subaru fans went around, saying "don't believe X crash test which says that a certain Subaru is good-but-not-industry-leading; Subarus protect people in the real world better than other brands," I'd challenge them to prove it too. 

I'll admit that generally, I trust the IIHS more than the NHTSA, but they're both sources of back-to-back testing where you can actually view the results of what happens when another vehicle hits the car in question from the front or the side.  Here are links so that you can review the results:

VW Jetta NHTSA crash tests
Volvo S40 NHTSA crash tests

VW Jetta IIHS crash tests
Volvo S40 IIHS crash tests

The Volvo slightly outperformed the VW in the NHTSA crash tests, though neither had a particularly bad showing, and neither vehicle swept the test with five stars all around.  The VW outperformed the Volvo in the IIHS test; the Volvo was let down by "marginal" protection to the driver's torso in  side impact and "acceptable" structural resistance to a side impact.

These tests are pretty good, particularly because they're not testing the same thing, so you can't just "teach to the test" and do okay on both (they use very different methodologies; the IIHS uses an offset frontal crash whereas the NHTSA uses a head-on impact; the IIHS uses an SUV-shaped sled for side impacts whereas the NHTSA uses a sedan-shaped sled). 

These tests may not be perfect, but they're the ONLY source of evidence we have.  If Volvo fans are going to say that the tests are bunk and don't represent real-world results, and that in the real world crash an S40 is going to dramatically out-perform a Jetta, give me something else to look at that shows similar crashes back-to-back.  Don't just say that "my cousin survived a crash in a Volvo, so clearly Volvos are better than other cars," unless you lost a Jetta-driving cousin to another similar crash.  If Volvo fans are going to say things like:

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.

Then I want them to support their argument with evidence, not just condescension. 

[dubrockn]

That wasn't condescension.  I apologize for it coming accross that way.  Everything I typed on my post was was just to defend a car I feel that is being rather unfairly treated. 

Volvo's are the type of vehicle that you either understand or you don't.  They have a certain undefinable character that can be refreshing when compared against other vehicles.

As for cracsh tests and safety; a close relative of mine works has worked in emergency services in Australia for the past 30 years, and when I asked him his opinion of the car I was considering (Volvo S60) he started to tell me of all the accident scenes he'd been involved in and how the Volvo's had faired.

To sum up his response he said "I always felt better when I first arrived at a bad accident if I saw a Volvo logo; it meant that I didn't have to treat people who were badly injured."  He also said "Bloody Good Motor Car!"  But then again he's kind of an "Aussie!  Aussie!  Aussie!  Oi!  Oi!  Oi!" sort of bloke.

[MKII]

Exactly, I and some others are just defending some very valid points regarding Volvo safety and myself passing on very accessible information available for car consumers to read how Volvo strides to make there cars as safe as possible.

I never once said other cars such as VW or Subaru are not as safe. Seems to me you are trying to make a point that they (VW or Subaru) are and Volvo is not.

Now show me some of the auto makers that even put out such info for the public to view as far as their Safety Test Facilities, their Accident Response Teams, etc.

Its not just marketing as you said, there is actual physical action being done by Volvo in how they study what happens in real life accidents. You pick the Volvo Safe My Life as a marketing gimmick, maybe it is, but those stories reported are real people not some hired from a marketing company.

[Mitlov]

As for cracsh tests and safety; a close relative of mine works has worked in emergency services in Australia for the past 30 years, and when I asked him his opinion of the car I was considering (Volvo S60) he started to tell me of all the accident scenes he'd been involved in and how the Volvo's had faired.

To sum up his response he said "I always felt better when I first arrived at a bad accident if I saw a Volvo logo; it meant that I didn't have to treat people who were badly injured."  He also said "Bloody Good Motor Car!"  But then again he's kind of an "Aussie!  Aussie!  Aussie!  Oi!  Oi!  Oi!" sort of bloke.

And Volvos, as a whole, have always been above average in safety.  But that doesn't meant that when you take a particular Volvo model--say, the V50--it's going to be better than another specific car that's also above average in safety (say, the 9-3 or A3). 

Driving a Volvo means that your far better off than the average car in safety.  But nowadays, it doesn't mean you're necessarily the best on the road.  At least based upon the only concrete evidence that's out there.  That's all I was saying with my very lengthy post.

And for the record, I overall really like the V50.  Shoot, I nearly bought one before we had a child and our budget shrank.  I also agree that, on a purely subjective level, Volvos look better than Volkswagen.  What I don't agree with, though, is that they have a more luxurious interior (once again, comparing the S40 and V50 I drove to my current Jetta), better build quality (comparing the cars I drove, as well as Consumer Reports reliability ratings, where the S60 has done quite well but the S40/V50 has done very poorly), or a better driving experience.  Basically, while I feel that the V50 is a very nice car on many levels, I can't think of one area where it particularly excels.  Given its high price, that's hard to stomach.

[mmret]

And for the record, I overall really like the V50.  Shoot, I nearly bought one before we had a child and our budget shrank.  I also agree that, on a purely subjective level, Volvos look better than Volkswagen.  What I don't agree with, though, is that they have a more luxurious interior (once again, comparing the S40 and V50 I drove to my current Jetta), better build quality (comparing the cars I drove, as well as Consumer Reports reliability ratings, where the S60 has done quite well but the S40/V50 has done very poorly), or a better driving experience.  Basically, while I feel that the V50 is a very nice car on many levels, I can't think of one area where it particularly excels.  Given its high price, that's hard to stomach.

Totally agree. Volvo just needs to adjust MSRP + option package pricing to more realistic levels and they have a real winner.

[Mitlov]

I never once said other cars such as VW or Subaru are not as safe. Seems to me you are trying to make a point that they (VW or Subaru) are and Volvo is not.

You didn't, but dubrockn did, and that's who I was responding to...

Never once have I said that Volvos are unsafe.  There's a huge difference between saying that a car is no longer a safety leader (which I said) and saying it's unsafe (which I didn't).  Dubrockn scoffed at the suggestion that you would be as safe, not to mention more safe, in a 9-3/A3/WRX as you would in a V50.  That's the context where I started breaking down crash tests between various cars and the V50.  But I'll agree that the least-safe new Volvo is still far above your average car in safety.

Now show me some of the auto makers that even put out such info for the public to view as far as their Safety Test Facilities, their Accident Response Teams, etc.

Once again, that's not something everybody has to do.  That's something you have to do if you argue that IIHS and NHTSA tests are flawed and don't accurately reflect how your company's cars perform in real world situations.  If your company has no beef with the IIHS or NHTSA, there's no reason to publish other information.  If your company DOES have beef with the IIHS or NHTSA, show us something better instead of just saying that the only information out there is imperfect. 

Its not just marketing as you said, there is actual physical action being done by Volvo in how they study what happens in real life accidents. You pick the Volvo Safe My Life as a marketing gimmick, maybe it is, but those stories reported are real people not some hired from a marketing company.

Yes, they're real stories.  And if Subaru wanted to, it could create a Subaru Saved My Life club too, featuring people who survived accidents in Subarus.  I agree that the stories in that club are real.  I agree that the stories show that a V50 is pretty darned safe.  I don't agree that club serves as evidence that V50 is safer than an A3, which is how this whole discussion started.

[MKII]

Now show me some of the auto makers that even put out such info for the public to view as far as their Safety Test Facilities, their Accident Response Teams, etc.

Once again, that's not something everybody has to do.  That's something you have to do

My point of asking for other auto manufacturers safety information was not asked to provide proof of being better, but as a convienence for the consumer to be able to read what the (auto brand) is providing as safety features, how these features work, what testing do they do besides the standard Government/Insurance tests, etc.

Volvo makes this information very accessible and gives very detailed information if a consumer wants to educated themselves to that extent. For me this is information that I find very interesting and helpful, plus from a marketing angle, it sure does give me the perception that Volvo goes to great lengths to make a very safe vehicle.

I think the only other manufacturer who has pretty good information available is Honda.

As you say though if I want this type of information from other auto manufacturers, this is something I have to do and I should not expect this type of information from auto companies that score well in the IIHS and NHTSA tests.
But if the company does not make this info accessible there is nothing I can do myself as a consumer to be able to educate myself on said companies philosphies and how they are applied to the cars.
That was my point of asking for other auto manufacturers safety info, and no I do not mean a safety feature column listing 8 airbags, ESC, all the usual stuff found in  a car brochure.

[johngenx]

One reason we initially bought a Mercedes years and years ago was the real (and percieved) safety advantage.  The cars were really ahead of the pack, but today, that gap has closed considerably.

[Mitlov]

My point of asking for other auto manufacturers safety information was not asked to provide proof of being better, but as a convienence for the consumer to be able to read what the (auto brand) is providing as safety features, how these features work, what testing do they do besides the standard Government/Insurance tests, etc.

Volvo makes this information very accessible and gives very detailed information if a consumer wants to educated themselves to that extent. For me this is information that I find very interesting and helpful, plus from a marketing angle, it sure does give me the perception that Volvo goes to great lengths to make a very safe vehicle.

I think the only other manufacturer who has pretty good information available is Honda.

As you say though if I want this type of information from other auto manufacturers, this is something I have to do and I should not expect this type of information from auto companies that score well in the IIHS and NHTSA tests.
But if the company does not make this info accessible there is nothing I can do myself as a consumer to be able to educate myself on said companies philosphies and how they are applied to the cars.
That was my point of asking for other auto manufacturers safety info, and no I do not mean a safety feature column listing 8 airbags, ESC, all the usual stuff found in  a car brochure.

Is this the sort of thing you're looking for then?  They're not quite as lengthy as Volvo's information, but they're along the same line.  Certainly at the same level as Honda's safety information on Honda's web page.

Subaru Safety: Accident avoidance. Impact protection.

Volkswagen's blurb on their history with safety: Volkswagen: Safe happens. EDIT:  I couldn't get this to come back up again, so it might not work for you.  VW's website is generally infuriating to navigate.

Audi's "glossary" lets you look up individual safety systems, concepts, and components to have a more detailed explanation of what it is, what it does, and why Audi uses it: Glossary: "safety" column.

[Mitlov]

To get back to the CTC review (sorry for causing this huge tangent), I don't think most of the "negativity" that the author notes is really about the car itself.  Most people here think this is a nice car at an unrealistic price.  Imagine if the Cayman S sold for $200,000.  Most posters would complain about the price instead of going into the superb styling, the perfect balance, the feedback, etc.  Why?  Because even good cars, when overpriced, get flamed.

[JSCC]

So would you buy this vehicle for it's price or a fully loaded Jetta 2.0T wagon for $35,000 or a fully loaded Audi A4 2.0T FrontTrak for $50,000?

[mmret]

Jetta, clearly. What does that $15k buy you if not Quattro?

[conwelpic]

just out of curiosity I checked out the specs of the V50 against my Rondo:

Headroom Front:  V50 - 988mm; Rondo 1056mm
Headroom Rear:  V50 - 968mm; Rondo 1020mm

Legroom Front:  V50 - 1057mm; Rondo 1048mm
Legroom Front:  V50 - 873mm; Rondo 971mm

Cargo Volume:  V50 - 2015L; Rondo 2083L

no conclusion, just thought it was interesting, however, I could buy two Rondo's for the price of this one V50 that was tested.

[toolatecrew]

As longer time mebers may know I had the "pleausre " of a v50 2.4i 5speed sport package v50 for 3 years.

If someone asked me if I would recommend it I'd say no. What its best at is abeing an around town "grocery getter" that has good sftey features and sure does look pretty. If you are willing to pay big $ for style I don't think you can go wrong. I can't count the number of times someone said that is one nice looking car for a wagon or some 20 somthing said "Heck I'd drive that even though it s wagon". But I most certainly did not find the interior more luxurious or quality than a VW. Certainly not Audi level. The powertrain and suspension were what I'd call competent. Not going to  bite you but definitly not sporty. Not luxury either.

Yes the option pricing really is stupid. Pay 6 k for turbo power and be required to pay 3k to get a sport suspension.

[adjutor]

it is way overpriced. Option pricing is an insult (as many other cars).You gonna have much more fun driving a VW  GTI or an Impreza WRX for many K less. Safety speaking, there about the same.Volvo's reliability goes to not bad to disatrous and they are costly to repair. I had a S60 R. It had major transmission, suspension, AWD, tie rod end,sensor , noise problems before reaching 50000km.The mags were extremely fragile. I had to replace or repair it 7 times and I do mostly highway driving.Maybe I've just  picked one of the lemon out of the Volvo tree, but it was a very bad and expensive experience.Volvocanada helped me a lot.They told me to buy an extended warranty!!! I dont know if this to much expensive  V50 T5 has the same mechanics but I wont take the chance to buy it.