Picture Gallery: 2008 Volvo V50 T5 | Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Day 4 | Discuss
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The big changes for 2008 to the V50 wagon and S40 Sedan are all appearance-related. The interior has been redesigned to provide more interior room and storage space, while the exterior has been slimmed and sculpted for a more sporty and modern look while retaining the grown-up Volvo look of the V70, for a strong family resemblance.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The Volvo V50 is available in three variants: the 2.4i which, starts at $32,995; the V50 T5 which my tester is based on, at $38,995; and the V50 T5 AWD variant that starts at $41,495. As expected in this price range, the V50 is packed with features and luxury but my tester kicks it up a notch with some pricey options.
First is the Sport Package which adds: 17-inch alloy wheels, dynamic chassis, bi-xenon headlights, power driver and passenger seats, homelink, auto dimming rear view mirror with compass, heated front seats, headlight washers and a cargo cover. The package is priced at $3,850.
|
|
No Volvo is complete without the DynAudio package available for $1,000. This group adds an exceptional audio system to the V50, with 12 speakers and Dolby Pro-Logic II surround sound.
On the outside my tester is suited up with the Sport Styling package which adds: rear spoiler and front chin spoiler. On the inside, the Sport Styling package adds a sport steering wheel with aluminum inlay and shift knob with the same. The only downside to the package is the price: at $2,750, you may want to skip it.
2008 Volvo V50 T5
MSRP as tested (including destination): $47,745
For more information on Volvo and the V50 visit Volvo Canada
 Click Image to Enlarge |
But back to the car itself. The exterior is extremely appealing in a modern-yet-sophisticated way; surprisingly, parked beside the Mazda3 Sport, the length of the vehicles seem identical. A quick look at the specifications reveals that, sure enough, the V50 is only 3.7cm longer than the Mazda3 Sport.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
For 2008 Volvo has made it top priority to address storage space issues that were a complaint of many in previous models. They did an okay job, but the door map pockets are still a little small and the centre console has a rather small storage area as well. There is still space to be gained here on the front wheel drive model, but perhaps the all-wheel drive variant would suffer because of the driveshaft tunnel.
The dead pedal in my tester is also a little narrow and a little too high for my liking. With the seat adjusted to reach the clutch comfortably, I find my knee bent too much on the dead pedal, but put the seat back, and the clutch is difficult to reach.
The rest of the interior is pure genius, though, especially the now-signature “floating” centre console that Volvo uses in all their cars. Every switch, button and knob feels solid and well put-together and everything is within easy reach. Perhaps the buttons on the centre console are small but with automatic climate control, they will rarely be used.
And of course the seats: is any Volvo article complete without mentioning the seats? They are wonderful — perfectly supportive, supremely comfortable, the best in the business. To top it off, included as a $500 option are the integrated rear child booster seats. Why more car manufacturers do not design booster seats into their cars I will never understand.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
Starting up front with the engine, the inline five-cylinder, turbo charged engine puts out 227hp and 236lb-ft of torque. Not sure if many noticed, but I also have the privilege to be driving a six-speed manual transmission mated to this engine which allows you to squeeze every last drop out of this power train.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
On the road you forget you are driving a wagon until you look back into your rearview mirror and see how far away that back window is. Although perhaps a little on the heavy side, the V50 feels nimble around corners and is easy to maneuver in all situations.
On the highway and, for that matter, around town, the V50 feels vault-like. It is extremely quiet and solid-feeling; some engine noise intrudes if you step on the accelerator with vigour, but it sounds great, so who am I to complain? A little spice with your cheese, perhaps? This makes for one cool wagon!
 Click Image to Enlarge |
You do not pay dearly for the extra power from the T5 engine, though. Natural Resources Canada rates the V50 2.4i at 10.5/7.0 L/100km (city/highway) while the T5-equipped V50 is rated to return 10.7/7.0 L/100km (city/highway). Over the course of the week I managed to average 10.3 L/100 with a mix of city and highway driving. I would say the V50 did really well for my daily grind.
Even though it is built on the same platform as the Mazda3 — as mentioned before the two vehicles are not really in the same class — the Volvo certainly feels more grown up, more solid and more sophisticated than its compact car cousin. Although not a very large vehicle for the money, it follows the same trend as other premium-segment vehicles. Perhaps with the rise in gas prices many shoppers will no longer equate price with size but rather with quality, content and feel.
*Rating out of 5:
| 2008 Volvo V50 T5 | |
| Acceleration | 
|
| Handling |
|
| Comfort |  |
| Interior |
|
| Audio System | |
| Gas Mileage | |
*Rating based on vehicle’s classification
2008 Volvo V50 T5
MSRP as tested (including destination): $47,745
For more information on Volvo and the V50 visit Volvo Canada
to our site.
May 08, 2008, 11:38:16 pm 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).
May 09, 2008, 07:57:01 pm 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.
May 09, 2008, 09:44:33 pm 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.
May 09, 2008, 10:17:26 pm 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.
May 09, 2008, 10:55:04 pm 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.
May 10, 2008, 04:27:50 am
(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.)
May 10, 2008, 08:38:30 am
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.
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:
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.
May 10, 2008, 10:36:58 am 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.
May 10, 2008, 10:54:15 am 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.
May 10, 2008, 02:32:17 pm
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.
May 10, 2008, 03:41:33 pm
Totally agree. Volvo just needs to adjust MSRP + option package pricing to more realistic levels and they have a real winner.
May 10, 2008, 04:15:09 pm
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.
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.
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.
May 11, 2008, 04:06:37 am
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.
May 11, 2008, 10:07:23 am 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.
May 11, 2008, 12:52:16 pm
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.
May 11, 2008, 01:24:23 pm 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.
May 11, 2008, 01:56:01 pm 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?
May 11, 2008, 02:15:31 pm Jetta, clearly.
May 11, 2008, 10:43:27 pm 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.
May 12, 2008, 08:38:46 am 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.
May 12, 2008, 01:39:23 pm
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.
May 12, 2008, 01:49:34 pm I don't know if this is the case or not with the V50 but you can't judge the cost based on the MSRP. Volvo tends not to cut the MSRP but they will subvent the lease with low rates and inflated residuals. They also tend to throw in certain optiion packages for "free". Lately they are also offering money towards the down payment.
May 12, 2008, 03:17:06 pm
They do occasioanlly offer packages like Hinda does with an SE package with maybe wheels and florr mats and a few other things but I've never seen them offer a 2500-3800 package for free. For goodness sake if you want a cargo cover you need to buy a 2500 package. Same thing with power seats. They have a total of 6 stand alone options:leather,Nav, keyless drive, heated seats ,booster seats and blind spot information.
May 12, 2008, 06:02:39 pm With a 2008 passat 3.6l 4motion(280 hp) for about $42 500 it is hard to justify a $41 000 + V50 T5, I think that the VW is a far more impressive car.I dont kow about the reliability but it is probably not worst than Volvo's.
May 12, 2008, 06:13:10 pm
Agreed, that Passat would be one sweet sweet car.