Fun enough to kill (Volvo's boring image)?
Written: Aug 07 '03 (Updated Jun 22 '05)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: High handling limits, power once boost up, front seat comfort
Cons: Boost lag, lacks agility expected of a compact
The Bottom Line: I’d like more communication from the steering and chassis. An unbeatable value, however, for those interested in traveling quickly, luxuriously, and safely over just about any paved road.
|
|
|
| mkaresh's Full Review: 2004 Volvo S60 R AWD 4 Dr Sedan |
There are two types of automotive brands. Most profess to seek a powerful, distinct image yet their attempts to offer everything to everyone persistently undermine this stated goal. Others actually possess a distinct image, yet strive to broaden it to appeal to a broader market, such that they risk joining the hopelessly vague majority. Volvo falls in the latter category. The Volvo brand has long been identified with a widely sought vehicle attribute—safety. This strong, focused image has guaranteed it steady sales.
So why risk diluting this image? Although Volvo’s sales grew during the 1990s, they did not grow nearly as much as those of other European brands. Each year from 1962 to 1992 Volvo sold more cars in the U.S. than any other premium European brand. In 1993 it was passed by BMW, and in 1996 it was passed by Mercedes. Lately BMW sells nearly twice as many cars. Volvo executives felt they were losing ground.
Solution? Make Volvos more like BMWs. To grow beyond its loyal base Volvo in the late 1990s began endowing its cars with more flowing lines. Volvos have long been available with turbocharged engines, but in recent years these have received more and more emphasis. Volvo still wants to be known for safety and durability, but also for design and driving excitement. This strategy is most evident in the new 2004 S60 R, a 300-horsepower, all-wheel-drive, high performance “tuner” version of Volvo’s compact sedan. In its attempt to offer a car with everything, can Volvo still offer a distinctive product?
Volvo S60R Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Volvo S60R rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.
To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Styling
Through the late 1990s Volvo’s were widely regarded as some of the least stylish cars on the road. Although beginning in the early 1980s some concessions were made to aerodynamics, none were made for aesthetics. Nary a curve was to be found. Somehow this boxiness did not hurt Volvo’s sales. Many loyal customers even found its cars’ simple lines appealing for their connotation of simplicity and strength. Their distinctiveness was also a draw—those Volvos could be mistaken for nothing else.
Volvo began to cast aside its proud frumpiness with the 1998 C70 coupe. However, this new, curvy body was based on the existing 850/S70 platform, and was a coupe, and thus was of limited significance. After all, a few times in past decades Volvo had sold a stylish coupe. Real change began with the 1999 S80 sedan, the top of the Volvo line. The S80 contained more stylish curves than any previous Volvo sedan, most notably an elegantly sweeping roofline and beltline. Lest all continuity be lost, these curves were highlighted by strong creases and sharp edges. Thanks to these, and a strong shoulder running the length of the car a few inches below the beltline, the new S80 retained a visual solidity that clearly said “Volvo.”
These days every car company seeks to cut costs by sharing basic engineering elements across models. In Volvo’s case, a pair of smaller vehicles were derived from the S80’s platform: the 2001 S60 sedan and V70 wagon. The S60 is nearly ten inches shorter than the S80 in length. The V70 wagon, meant to serve as a companion to both sedans, falls between them in length. (Click on hyperlinks to go to my reviews of related vehicles.) One result of this platform sharing: although the S60 is roughly the same length as other European luxury compacts (BMW 3-Series, Mercedes C-Class, Audi A4), it is roughly the same width as European midsize cars (5-Series, E-Class, A6). More on this later.
In exterior styling, the S60 strongly resembles the S80, only with more compact proportions and a more sweeping roofline. It is easily the best-looking Volvo sedan yet, both elegant and sporty. It’s main aesthetic weakness to my eye is a touch of slabbishness in the bodysides, intentionally put there to provide a link to the past. Given the obvious value of retaining Volvo’s image of safety and durability, this concession seems a wise tradeoff. All in all, a masterful design update if not quite a beauty.
Similarly, although some people might wish the two sedans looked less alike, I personally believe that a shared aesthetic across a brand’s models makes a brand stronger. Especially when a brand is as small as Volvo it cannot afford to go off in many different stylistic directions. (I’m not sure large brands can afford this either.)
The R is noticeably differentiated from other S60s only through its uniquely styled five-spoke wheels. The wheels are tasteful, but unlikely to draw attention to the car apart from their size. The R also has a unique front fascia and a tiny spoiler on the trunk, but these will only be evident to people looking for them. The R is clearly not meant for those who want to be noticed.
Volvos’ interiors, which all look alike, have also been made more stylish, but not to the same degree. Rectinlinear lines continue to dominate, softened only through rounded faceplate corners and soft-touch materials and controls. The overall look recalls Scandanavian furniture (if not quite so much as the interior of the new BMW 745i) in its connotation of restrained luxury. Material quality is roughly equivalent to VW’s, which is to say it falls between that of good mainstream brands (Honda, Toyota) and the better luxury brands (Audi, Lexus).
Two details catch my eye in these new interiors. Air vent selection is controlled through three large adjoining buttons on which a seated person is outlined. Very intuitive. To direct air to your feet, push the button on which the feet are drawn, and so on. Overall the minor controls are designed and arranged more logically than in other European luxury sedans. “Good design” in the European sense goes beyond styling to include usability. This is good design in the European sense. The second detail is present in manual-transmission cars: the shifter is wrapped not in a boot but in a curved piece of hard silver plastic which slides around beneath a similarly finished rounded bezel. It looks somewhat like a computer joystick. I suppose the intent might have been to connote high-tech. It is distinctive, but I’m not sure it fits the rest of the interior.
To these details, the R versions of the S60 and V70 add a couple of their own. The gauge faces are iridescent blue with silver numerals and silver beveled surrounds, a style and color scheme adopted from upscale sports watches. Nifty looking, but like the shifter they don’t quite meld with the rest of the interior. Well, maybe they’d look at home in the blue leather interior (blue along with beige is one of the standard shades). (This choice of hue would also match the blue stitching of the black leather atop the instrument cluster of all R’s.) The car I drove, however, was upholstered in orange “natural” leather unique to the R, a $1,500 option. As in Nissans and Infinitis that offer orange interiors for 2003, I find this shade oddly appealing in a sporty vehicle. It’s emotionally warm, without the blah of beige. But $1,500 seems a steep price to pay.
Accommodations
The S60 combines the length of a compact with the width of a midsize. Consequently, it offers the legroom of a compact and the shoulder room of a midsize. An interesting combination.
In the front seat there is plenty of room in all directions. Owing to its width, the S60 feels like a midsize car to the driver and front passenger. This carries over to the basic character of the car, such that it feels much larger than the compact Germans with which it competes.
Volvo has long been known for large, comfortable seats, and the R seats despite their aggressive-looking bolsters adhere to this tradition. People of all sizes should be pleased with the comfort of these seats. Aside from their size, they are less firm than those found in German cars, yet still provide support in all the right places. For driving long distances, I can think of few better.
The front seatback bolsters are spaced a bit too widely and splay out too much to firmly grasp a borderline slender man like myself. In aggressive driving, these bolsters prevented me from sliding (unlike the comfortable but flat and slick seats in the base S60), but I would have liked to feel a bit more secure. People of larger build, though, should be quite happy. The seat cushion bolsters were more to my taste.
More adjustability might have rectified my issue with the bolsters. Strangely for an upscale sport sedan, the R’s seats include only basic adjustments (height, tilt, recline, lumbar)—and the lumbar adjustment is even manual. To reconcile Volvo’s traditional comfort for with the R’s sporty mission, bolster adjustments would be very welcome. The steering wheel manually tilts and telescopes.
The driving position provides good but not great visibility. The view forward is much like that in the German competition, maybe even a little better. The top of the dash is high enough to suggest luxury but not so high as to impede visibility or provide that “in a bathtub” feeling I personally dislike. (The top of the dash in the smaller S40/V40 is considerably higher, such that I do not like to even sit in the front seats of those cars.) The view to the rear is hampered somewhat by large headrests, those sweeping pillars, and a moderately high rear deck. Still, I felt comfortable using the mirrors to change lanes.
The rear seat is not quite so happy a place to be. Headroom and kneeroom are limited back there, especially if the front seat occupants are tall and put their seats most of the way back. People taller than 5'10" or so will have to scrunch down in the seat to avoid contact with the ceiling. To provide even such limited headroom given the steeply raked rear roofline, the seat cushion is moderately low. Nevertheless, decent thigh support is provided by a raked seat cushion--outboard rear seat passengers are cosseted in a pocket. Comfy—as long as these passengers are not tall. Three back here would be a squeeze, and the person in the middle will not be happy.
If you want a better rear seat, the solution is the V70 wagon, which provides two inches more rear legroom and an inch more rear headroom.
Trunk space is typical for an upscale compact (i.e. adequate but nothing to rave about). The opening is a bit tight owing to the car's styling (a common issue these days). The rear seat folds in two parts. The headrests must be tilted forward first, but this isn’t hard. Bucking a recent trend (the new Acura TSX, for instance), the pass through created by folding the seats is generously sized.
Overall, accommodations are typical for this class of car. I read somewhere that the S60 was controversial within Volvo because it compromised functionality for the sake of style. These compromises have been noted: rear seat headroom and the size of the trunk opening. I suspect most people will willingly pay this price for the stylishly raked rear roofline. I certainly find the S60 much easier on the eyes than the S70 (nee 850) sedan it replaced.
On the Road
Months ago I visited a Volvo dealer interested in driving any S60 or V70 they had with a manual transmission. The only such car in stock was a base S60, so that was what I drove. That car felt a bit prosaic for a niche brand, in character falling somewhere between a Camry and a Passat (not quite as bland as the former, but not as distinctly European as the latter). The engine sounded coarse and the shifter lacked slickness. Handling bordered on mediocre, with firm-yet-numb steering and more lean in turns than I expect from a European sedan. The car felt fairly solid, but so does a good Japanese sedan these days. All in all, such a bland driving experience (with the exception of that five-pot “song”) that I could never summon up the will to write it up. With the R did Volvo now have a car I’d like to personally own?
With the R, I was jumping all the way to the other end of the S/V range. I was going from a 168-horsepower normally-aspirated 2.4-liter to a 300-horsepower, turbocharged 2.5-liter. Like the three other engines offered in these cars, both were variations on Volvo’s 20-valve five-cylinder engine. The R accomplishes its significant 53-horsepower jump over the formerly top-of-the-line T5’s engine through eight-percent more displacement, additional boost, and variable timing of the intake as well as the exhaust valves. (Only the exhaust valves are variably timed on the T5 engine.)
Compared to competitors’ normally-aspirated engines, Volvo’s turbos produce peak power at relatively low RPM. The R’s peak occurs at 5500 RPM, low for such a highly tuned engine. Clearly, if Volvo so desired, there is yet more power to be found in this engine by tuning it to peak at over 6000 RPM. Typical of both Volvo and Saab, however, the emphasis even in the R is on a wide, flat torque curve. The engine’s electronics adjust turbo boost to produce the peak torque of 295 ft-lbs. all the way from 1950 RPM to 5250 RPM. Extending this peak beyond 5250 to produce more peak horsepower would likely force the entire curve up, harming low-RPM power. I would not be surprised if one engineering requirement was “torque peak below 2000 RPM.” As it is, peak power is produced all the way from 5500 RPM to the engine’s 6800 RPM redline.
The result? The S60 R is not a light car, despite its compact length. As with Audi’s top models, adding all-wheel-drive and high-performance hardware adds pounds—about 400 of them—for a total of 3,700. Three hundred horsepower is going to move this much mass well, but not as well as it will move the similarly powerful but 3,260-pound Subaru WRX STi.
Volvo claims the S60 R will go from zero to sixty in 5.4 seconds. It didn’t feel that fast to me, likely because that number was generated by dropping the clutch at high RPM to take advantage of the traction provided by four tires. Car and Driver alone among auto magazines provides two acceleration numbers to eliminate this element: a 0-60 using all the tricks in the book and a 5-60 “street start” to simulate normal driving, where the clutch is engaged with an eye towards longevity. With the typical family sedan the two numbers tend to be similar. With high-performance all-wheel-drive cars, on the other hand, they can be quite different. For example, the Subaru WRX STi posted a 0-60 of 4.6 seconds, but a “street start” of 5.8 seconds. I’d expect a similar effect with the Volvo, such that it feels like a car that goes from zero to sixty in the upper sixes. Fast, but not blistering.
(With the optional automatic peak torque is lower, 258 ft-lbs. from 1850 to 6000 RPM. I suspect this is because the automatic cannot handle more torque. Peak power is still 300, but over a narrower range. Volvo claims a much slower 0-60 time for the automatic: 7.2 seconds.)
From its mode of power delivery no one will mistake the R’s engine for anything but a turbo. Grunt off the line (sans dropping the clutch at high RPM) is lacking. Whenever more power is called for there is always a lag as the turbo spins up. At highway speeds this lag is briefer, but it’s always there. I’ve owned turbocharged cars in the past, and this is something that you almost subconsciously take into account after a while. When you want to pass another car, for example, you automatically open the throttle a bit sooner than you would in a non-turbo engine. Still, though the planning becomes familiar after a while, it still must go on, so driving a turbocharged car is never as effortless as a naturally aspirated one.
Thankfully, the R’s engine lacks the bipolar, Jekyl and Hyde nature of the high-boost turbos of yore. Boost comes on smoothly and predictably unless you change your mind mid-course, in which case some minor surging and bucking ensues. The flat torque curve described earlier translates into totally linear power delivery once the turbo is spooled up. Although technically desirable, this detracts from driving excitement as there is little sense of the engine “coming on cam.” Power just steadily builds as RPM rise. At about 4000 RPM it begins to feel as powerful as its stats suggest.
Aside from boost lag, the R’s engine shares a second shortcoming with the other S60 engines. With five cylinders, it will never sound nearly as sweet as a good six, or even a mediocre six. Thankfully, the R engine manages to sound more refined than the base engine—though I do not imagine anyone will find its song (gargling?) beautiful. Even with this additional refinement the engine becomes quite vocal as it nears the redline. Unlike in some cars I have driven recently, I was never in danger of inadvertently banging the rev limiter in this one. I kept my eye on the tach to keep myself from shifting too soon rather than not soon enough.
A couple of issues with the instruments. First, there is no boost gauge. One would be very helpful to more precisely predict the oncoming rush of power. Second, at times when turning the tach was blocked by a steering wheel spoke. Quite likely there is no easy way around the latter problem, but it was a nuisance nonetheless. This car has enough traction to accelerate through turns, but without the tach knowing when to shift can be difficult.
Based on my test drive of a 242-horsepower C70 convertible with an automatic transmission, a clear tradeoff is involved between transmission types. In aggressive driving a manual tends to be better, as finding the right gear and holding it is more intuitive even compared to manually shifting the automatic. For quirk squirts through traffic, or for passing on the highway, the automatic tends to be better, as you simply have to depress the accelerator and the transmission will kick down, the turbo will spool up, and you’ll be off. Somehow boost lag seems less a factor with an automatic in such situations. Basically the same tradeoff as must normally be made between transmission types, but magnified by the basic nature of a turbocharged engine.
Why doesn’t Volvo (and Saab for that matter) just join the crowd and equip its cars with larger, normally aspirated sixes? The explanation generally given is fuel economy. The R’s EPA numbers are 18/25, two or three MPG below the T5 but equivalent to the less powerful all-wheel-drive S60 2.5T. This suggests that the all-wheel-drive system is more to blame for the decrease than the additional power. At any rate, these numbers are hardly stellar, even for so powerful a car. When equipped with similarly powerful, normally aspirated V8 engines and automatic transmissions both the BMW 540i and Lexus GS 430 earn similar ratings. An Audi A6 4.2, equipped with all-wheel-drive and significantly heavier than the Volvo, rates 17/25. There might be a fuel economy advantage to a small turbocharged engine, but its not clearly evident in the EPA numbers. Weight should be another advantage, but as already discussed the S60 R is no lightweight.
The five-speed manual I sampled in the base S60 was a bit long of throw and coarse of feel. The six-speed developed for the R is significantly better on both counts, if still not among the best. Gearing is on the tall side for an engine of this size. In sixth the engine turns a fairly lazy 2200 RPM at 60. This should be good for fuel economy, such that the EPA highway number should be easily attainable. It does mean that passing requires a downshift to fifth or even fourth, but I personally feel that highway fuel economy is more important than top-gear acceleration. A shorter first gear for more grunt off the line might be nice, though. My suggestion: shorten the final drive or space the six ratios a bit more widely.
Powerful Volvos in recent years have suffered from a moderate amount of torque steer—the steer wheel tightens up and even tugs to one side a bit under hard acceleration. This is common in powerful front-wheel-drive cars. Although some others suffer from far more torque steer, I’d prefer none at all. Here the R’s all-wheel-drive system comes into play. Although nearly all power is directed to the front wheels when cruising, by the time the turbo kicks in enough power has been automatically routed to the rear wheels that no torque steer is evident. (Strangely, I could till feel the wheel tighten up in an all-wheel-drive XC90 I drove after the S60. It’s all-wheel-drive system might be less sophisticated.)
The brakes, with powerful calipers supplied by Brembo, are also an improvement over other Volvos. Volvo brakes tend to be powerful, but I found them non-linear and grabby on a V70 I drove a couple of years ago. I detected no such problems with the R’s brakes. They engaged in a more linear fashion, yet were plenty powerful when called upon.
When developing the R, Volvo focused on handling. The all-wheel-drive system works in conjunction with individually adjustable shocks and a sophisticated stability control system to optimally balance the chassis by varying the amount of power sent to the rear wheels and shock damping. Supposedly this electro-mechanical system produces a bit of oversteer heading into curve, a balanced chassis through the apex, and a bit of understeer on the way out of the curve. (Sensors read steering angle and the rate of acceleration. No yaw sensor is mentioned in the brochure, but I would expect one also plays a role.) Adjustments are supposedly made 500 times a second, which would be much quicker than similar systems in the past (though GM’s latest adjustable shocks as fitted to some Corvettes and Cadillacs are twice as fast). As a result, while similar past systems always seemed a step or two behind, the Volvo’s is largely transparent. The range through which the shocks are adjusted can be controlled through three conveniently placed buttons on the dash, “comfort,” “sport,” and “advanced.” I spent most of my time in “sport.”
Between the R’s extra weight, throne-like seats, all-wheel-drive, and suspension wizardry it felt like a much more substantial car than the vanilla S60. A driver might be forgiven for feeling like the “king of the road” while in the driver’s seat of this car. (A similar attitude was suggested by a cousin, the Jaguar S-Type R.)
When making turns and accelerating up on-ramps my general sense was of a very stable, well-damped chassis. In turns the R leans little, unlike a base S60. It takes a set and sticks, albeit with a touch of understeer when accelerating through a turn. If you somehow do mess up very badly Volvo has fitted the R with a bevy of electronics to save you. I never detected the operation of the stability control. Either it intervenes seamlessly or I didn’t push the car hard enough to engage it. Should control be hopelessly lost despite the all-wheel-drive, stability control, and so forth, or a collision occur, the R includes the vast array of safety features found on nearly all current luxury cars. Volvo with reason is pitching this as a safe high-performance car. After all, it would be folly to simply abandon its traditional safety image. A great car for tackling any road quickly yet safely.
The R’s steering is less of an improvement. The steering ratio is a smidgen (5.6%) quicker than even the T5’s, to increase its responsiveness. And the chassis does respond quickly and predictably to steering inputs. However, the steering did not feel nearly as sharp or communicative as Volvo's literature claims. As in other Volvo’s I’ve driven over the past two decades, a firm-yet-numb feel that connotes safety and solidity, even stolidity, predominated. This did not detract substantially from my ability to place the car but it did detract from my driving enjoyment. Together with the S60’s width, those large seats, and too much chassis isolation, this steering gave me the feeling I was driving a midsize sedan rather than a more agile, high-powered, point-and-shoot compact. Think BMW 5 rather than BMW 3, though even the 5’s steering has a lighter, more precise feel to it and its chassis communicates more through the seat of your pants. Perhaps I should have spent more time in the “advanced” setting, but firmer shocks do not improve a chassis’ ability to communicate (much less the amount of steering feedback). As I understand it, that’s more a matter of bushings. I also don’t see how firmer shocks would lend the car a more tossable quality—that’s in the suspension geometry.
I suspect that I could have enjoyed the R more if I had been able to push it harder. The problem is, between the lag before the turbo kicks in, the rush afterwards, and the chassis’ high limits this isn’t practical in populated areas. If you live in an area with more curves and hills than people, though, this might be the thrill ride for you. Otherwise, I tend to prefer a more agile car with less power and lower limits.
I was not able to properly evaluate ride quality. Aside from a railroad crossing and a short stretch of mildly pocked pavement, the roads were very smooth. Most had been recently paved. As a result, even with the optional 18” wheels and their 40-series tires and the chassis set to “sport” the ride felt smooth and even a bit on the cushy side, if not quite as fluid as a BMW or Lexus. (BMW has somehow managed to endow its sedan chassis with both a compliant ride and good communication skills.) The railroad crossing was handled with little disturbance, suggesting that ride quality is at least adequate. A true test requires a rougher road than I was able to discover within a practical distance from the dealership. (Actually, I spied a gravel road, but felt taking a new S60 R down it could constitute abuse.) If you will be driving on rough roads, be sure to test the R on them, as past performance-tuned Volvos have been widely criticized for a flinty ride. Maybe the fancy shocks fix this issue, maybe not.
Noise levels were moderate on the highway. Some competitors (at least in their less highly tuned versions) are quieter, but the S60 R is at least playing in the same league. Performance tires tend to become noisy on some surfaces, but I did not traverse any that made the R’s Pirellis sing. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if the R were less refined and quiet. As it is, the level of refinement detracts from the perceived level of performance—as is the case with many powerful luxury cars, the R does not feel as quick as it is.
Overall, I was impressed by the Volvo’s performance, but expected it to be more fun to drive. I have not driven the BMW M3 or upcoming 2004 Audi S4, but I would expect them to be more fun to drive than the Volvo. I have driven the previous S4, and it possessed a point-and-shoot character lacking in the Volvo. (It didn’t hurt that the Audi’s twin-turbo V6 suffered from much less boost lag.) In the Volvo’s favor, it could well be more comfortable than the others, and promises more safety (though the others are also fitted with stability control and the Audi also has all-wheel-drive.)
The V70 R might have more appeal. It has fewer competitors, as Audi is the only other manufacturer to offer a wagon in performance trim with 300 or more horsepower. The wagon is also sized to compete more with the A6 than the A4, widening its price advantage and narrowing its handling disadvantage. Finally, the wagon has a more even weight distribution, which might lend the car a more balanced feel (though in the regular V70 all of that extra mass atop the rear does harm the car’s handling). I don’t think I’ll be able to drive this car, as the dealer is not planning to stock any. If you want one where I live, you’ll have to order it.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
The following is from when the review was originally written:
The Volvo’s big, undeniable advantage over its direct competitors is price. It starts at $37,560 ($39,560 for the V70 R wagon), which seems a bargain for a near-luxury car equipped with such a sophisticated drivetrain and chassis. This price is only $4,000 more than the 2003 T5, which has 53 fewer horsepower and lacks the R’s all-wheel-drive, sixth gear, fancy shocks, 17” wheels, and standard leather upholstery. Figure $1,750 for all-wheel-drive, $1,450 for leather, and $750 for 17” wheels and a sport suspension, and the R’s engine, transmission, and suspension upgrades account for only $50 of the difference. Sticker to sticker, the R seems a much better value.
The problem with this analysis is that, according to Edmunds, dealers are not currently discounting the R, but are heavily discounting the T5. Add leather and the sport package to a T5 to bring it as close as possible to a base R, and the typical transaction price is around $30,800. This is $2,600 below invoice, courtesy of a $4,500 factory-to-dealer cash incentive. Suddenly the R is costing nearly $7,000 more even after adjusting for leather and wheels. Deduct $1,750 for all-wheel-drive, and the premium is still around $5,000 rather than the $50 implied by the stickers. For some people this might be justifiable, but it’s certainly more of a stretch. Once the 2003s are cleared out the premium for the R should become more reasonable.
Another issue with the R’s pricing involves options. Separately they carry the high prices typical of options with luxury brands. The sunroof is not significantly different than the one that will set you back $595 in a Ford Focus, but here it costs $1,200. The premium stereo is also $1,200, but Volvo will cut you a break if you want both—the package is two grand. Similar to other premium European brands (but no one else, including VW), Volvo charges $450 for metallic paint. The most outrageously priced option is the 18-inch wheels. These are the same style and are shod with the same brand and width tire as the standard 17-inch wheels, so their cost to Volvo should be about the same, but they’ll cost you an extra $995. Frankly, judging from photos it’s hard to tell the difference. To me this seems one grand easily saved. Load these options, the $1,495 orange leather, and a few other knick-knacks onto the R and the sticker swells to that of the car I drove: $43,680. A bit pricey, I’d say. And this car didn’t even have the $1,895 navigation system.
Those who want the goodness of the R for the least amount of money should consider a red (i.e. non-metallic) car with nothing beyond the sunroof/stereo package and (if they live where it snows) climate package. The resulting price: $39,905. Very close to a nice, round number. I’ll run with this one.
A similarly equipped BMW M3, Mercedes C32 (auto only), Audi S4 (once available), or Cadillac CTSv (ditto) will run seven to twelve grand more. Compared to the Germans, the Volvo appears a bargain. It’s not as good a car, but it’s much less expensive. To get close to the R’s price it is necessary to settle for the non-tuner variants of these cars, all of which are available with all-wheel-drive for 2003. An A4 costs as much as $5,000 less while the BMW and Mercedes are closer to the R in price. These cars offer about 220 horsepower, so they are not as quick as the S60 R. The S60 2.5t all-wheel-drive is a closer comparison, though like the Mercedes it is only available with an automatic transmission.
If the R’s power and all-wheel-drive traction are its most appealing features for you, the VW Passat W8 might be worth considering. The Passat doesn’t handle as well or look as sporty as the Volvo, but it feels slightly more luxurious and uses eight cylinders to offer 270 horsepower without need for a turbo. VW has had a difficult time selling these cars. The sticker is very similar to the S60 R’s, but dealer discounting takes the typical transaction price down to about $37,400 according to Edmunds. When I drove this car last fall, some leftover 2002s were marked down to around $33,000.
Aside from the Germans, no one else offers a powerful all-wheel-drive luxury sedan. The next Subaru Legacy might be a viable competitor, but it is not due until the 2005 model year. Its price when fitted with a rumored 280-horsepower turbocharged engine could approach the mid-thirties.
Those willing to do without all-wheel-drive might consider the Infiniti G35. The G35 lacks the sophisticated chassis electronics, and Brembo brakes of the S60 R, and generally feels like a lesser car, but offers similar acceleration, a more inherently balanced chassis, and a roomier back seat. A similarly equipped G35 costs about $32,000 after a roughly $700 dealer discount.
Those willing to do without luxury might consider the Subaru WRX STi. The Subaru lists for $31,500, and dealers tend to knock off about $900. Like the S60 R, it has a 2.5-liter turbocharged engine good for 300 horsepower and all-wheel-drive. Unlike the Volvo, it is a full-bore performance car with few amenities—no leather, no sunroof, not even a stereo. Considering its much higher level of content, the Volvo seems the better value. Those at all interested in luxury will not be buying the Subaru just to save money. Those interested in the maximum amount of driving enjoyment might, though.
Bottom line: those seeking a powerful compact luxury sedan with high handling limits must spend more or settle for a much less luxurious alternative. The Audi S4 is the only direct competitor, as others lack all-wheel-drive, and once available it will likely be much more expensive. From preliminary information I’m estimating it will cost another $7,000 comparably equipped. If the price difference turns out to be less than this, the S4 could well be the better value.
Final words
I’d personally like a more involving driving experience from the S60 R. Those interested in traveling quickly and safely over just about any paved road in luxury, however, will find it an unbeatable value. The only closely-related alternative on the horizon is the upcoming Audi S4. The new S4 will be powered by a 340-horsepower normally aspirated V8, but is expected to be considerably more expensive than the Volvo.
In terms of the Volvo brand the S60 R seems equally successful. Though still clearly a Volvo, it is also stylish. Though very fast, it can also legitimately claim to be very safe. If the R can manage to break through the clutter of recent vehicle introductions, it could well expand the image of the Volvo brand without weakening its core.
Update July 2004: I just drove the new Legacy GT at a nearby Volvo/Subaru dealer. It's better than the Volvo S60 R in just about every way--and about $10,000 less money. The salesperson told me she'd already sold one new turbo Subaru to a customer who came in for an S60 R. It won't be the last.
To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com. A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.
My reviews of related vehicles:
Audi S4
BMW M3
Cadillac CTSv (v material follows main review)
Saab 9-3
Subaru Legacy GT (seriously)
Volvo S60 (vanilla version)
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 43,680
Model and Options: R 6-speed with most options
|
|
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.