CTC Review: 2008 Volvo V50 T5

[CD_Editor]

Day 1:

Click Image to Enlarge

A recent poll conducted by the members of CarTalkCanada.com showed 85 per cent of them think wagons are cool.  Why do they think so?  Similar to hatchbacks, wagons provide extra storage capacity without the huge fuel consumption penalty of a heavy SUV or crossover.  This week I am behind the wheel of one such vehicle: the 2008 Volvo V50 T5.  More...

[JSCC]

I see Volvo still thinks they compete with Audi, BMW and MB.

[Jack]

City-sized, reasonable power and AWD.  So what's the problem? You can get into a Cross Country for the same money. So, with 2 kids and the requisite strollers/pack-and-play/kidstuff we looked at this and thought the XC was better value.
Oh... and don't forget about the discounting that Volvo is now doing.  Or, better still, wait a year or two and pick one up used.

[Mitlov]

I've driven this exact car--the V50 T5 FWD--and I've got to say that it's a very pleasant, charming car in isolation.

However, Volvos are remarkably pricey, and this car has some stiff competition.  The Audi A4 Avant FWD, the Audi A3, the Saab 9-3 SportCombi, and even the new WRX five-door spring to mind.  All offer better safety ratings, Volvo's trademark.  The A4 and the 9-3 offer more cargo space (the V50's cargo area is tiny for a wagon and almost comparable to a hatchback).  The Audis offer nicer interiors and more prestige.  And the 9-3, A3, and certainly the WRX offer a more engaging driving experience.

Still, if you like the Volvo's style and character and you don't play the "I could be driving X instead" game, it's an incredibly pleasant, charming car.

[Jack]

One more thing, despite the impressive efforts of our local dealer, our Volvo has needled us with minor gremlins. Window regulator twice, two separate speakers, a complete electronic module failure (intrument panel dead), and seat heater failure.

Never had these problems any of our previous cars (VW, Honda, Toyota or MB).

[Eric reen]

Jack nails it on every count.

Plus, the same car Stateside, WITH NAV, is $42,080. Volvo Canada must take Canuckistanis as utter idiots...

[mmret]

There is much that I like about Volvos...however the price is just way out of line.

Volvo, Acura, and perhaps VW compete with each other, but they are not on the same level as Audi/MB/BMW.

[Mitlov]

There is much that I like about Volvos...however the price is just way out of line.

Volvo, Acura, and perhaps VW compete with each other, but they are not on the same level as Audi/MB/BMW.

 

Volvo, right now, offers a product extremely comparable to Volkswagen, but at the price of a BMW.  The C30 is a nice car, but is it either more luxurious or more fun to drive than a GTI?  I don't think so.  The S40/V50 are pleasant, but do they feel any richer inside, or are they more pleasant to drive, than a nicely-equipped Jetta?  Same with the S60 and the Passat, and the C70 and the Eos.

I think Volvo should give up trying to be a BMW/MB/Audi competitor, and should get back to its roots.  The 240 was not a luxury car.  It was a safe, practical car for middle-class (or slightly-upper-middle-class) drivers with a hunk of Swedish personality.  If Volvos could get back to top ratings across the board with IIHS crash tests, and sell their vehicles at about the price of Volkswagens, I think the brand could really take off again.  If that means design in Sweden but assembly in Mexico or China, I'm okay with that.

[JT816]

I basically agree with everyone here. I was looking to buy an S40, which is essentially the same as the V50 (minus the wagon-form), test drove it 4 times but couldn't do it because of the price. The packages are ridiculously expensive and add up so quickly especially if you add simple stuff like leather, sunroof, HID, and automatic. So when you are done "adding" stuff, all of a sudden, you're in the $43-45k range and in a completely different class of cars where most (not all) of that "stuff" comes standard Acura TL, G35, etc.

It was a nice car to drive, fairly nimble, good power and torque from the engine (even the 2.4 felt more powerful than the HP/Torque state). Interior quality looks and feels good. I guess if you look at this car, you really have to make sure you're not planning on keeping it for long or you have a 2nd car in the family because unscheduled maintenance trips and maintenance costs (labour and parts) are very high (lots of Volvo parts need to be special ordered and you can't just use some no name/generic part because they don't/won't fit). My aunt has had 3 Volvos, 2 more recently (760 and S70), and the life of both was 7 years (only about 110,000km on each). The cars both became repairs nightmares and so now she has a Lexus. 

[Blueprint]

The very same press car was blogged on a Quebec website recently.  Everyone thought the pricing was obscene.  A V70 is cheaper, much larger inside and probably gets similar fuel economy as both cars use the same engines.  This is a decent car that needs decent pricing.  Why choose this over a well-equipped, 5 cyl. Jetta Sportwagen ?

[MKII]

.  Why choose this over a well-equipped, 5 cyl. Jetta Sportwagen ?

Because it drives, looks, feels different.

These reviewers are almost always given vehicles with all option boxes checked.
At a entry price of $32,995, its pretty good value, and step up to the T5 @ $38,995 is about $2,000 to high, then the AWD starts were the base V70 begins at $42,000, and I agree this is were Volvo has screwed up with the pricing.
And the sales numbers prove this.

V50 is a very nice car with decent value in base trim, but the way Volvo Canada has bundled the option packages instead of stand alone options, makes for a very expensive vehicle.

[dubrockn]

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.

As for comparing the Volvo to VW you are a crazy person.  Volvo's are head and shoulders above VW in terms of build quality, styling and reliability.  There is a reason that they sell a VW shirt with a check engine symbol on it.  And you know what they say "in a VW if your check engine light isn't on it's because the bulb is burnt out".

Volvo's are more expensive granted but you can't build a car of Volvo's quality and price it like a Vee-Dub.

Oh and while I'm on the subject of pricing;  try getting off the internet for a minute and going in to a BMW, Audi, or MB store and see how expensive those brands can really be when you compare them to Volvo.

P.S. For the record I'm a Volvo owner and I've had absolutly no problems with my car, and I got it at a great price  

[ktm525]

I sound like a broken record but if I really wanted a Volvo wagon for that price I would hunting for a 1 year old V70R.

[quadzilla]

As for comparing the Volvo to VW you are a crazy person.  Volvo's are head and shoulders above VW in terms of build quality, styling and reliability.  There is a reason that they sell a VW shirt with a check engine symbol on it.  And you know what they say "in a VW if your check engine light isn't on it's because the bulb is burnt out".

Volvo's are more expensive granted but you can't build a car of Volvo's quality and price it like a Vee-Dub.

You should ask one of the members on this forum how he feels about his Volvo V50 that had to make numerous trips to the dealer for many issues.

[Cortina]

I have to ask. Does this Volvo have the adaptive cruise control and the blind spot detectors?

[mmret]

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.

As for comparing the Volvo to VW you are a crazy person.  Volvo's are head and shoulders above VW in terms of build quality, styling and reliability.  There is a reason that they sell a VW shirt with a check engine symbol on it.  And you know what they say "in a VW if your check engine light isn't on it's because the bulb is burnt out".

Volvo's are more expensive granted but you can't build a car of Volvo's quality and price it like a Vee-Dub.

Oh and while I'm on the subject of pricing;  try getting off the internet for a minute and going in to a BMW, Audi, or MB store and see how expensive those brands can really be when you compare them to Volvo.

P.S. For the record I'm a Volvo owner and I've had absolutly no problems with my car, and I got it at a great price  

Touchy touchy.

I guess Youtube is the choice for figuring out how safe a car is, not IIHS or NHTSA.

While I love Volvo styling, VWs are not ugly ducklings. Very subjective, styling is. Very objective, you are not. In terms of build quality and reliability I do not have my CR membership any more but I doubt Volvo is all that much better. And the reason those T-shirts exist is because someone wants to make money, and its easy to make money off something that bashes something else in an amusing way.

Volvo's are more expensive granted but you can't build a car of Volvo's quality and price it like a Vee-Dub.

Oh and while I'm on the subject of pricing;  try getting off the internet for a minute and going in to a BMW, Audi, or MB store and see how expensive those brands can really be when you compare them to Volvo.

By extension, you cannot build an Audi and price it like a VW.

P.S. For the record I'm a Volvo owner and I've had absolutly no problems with my car, and I got it at a great price Wink 

You're a Volvo activist with no objective opinion.

Welcome.

[vdk]

Since this whole VW vs. Volvo thing's going on... I'll pitch in.

In '05 the family bought the then new S40, a 2.4i with some options on it. Back then, you could just choose the options YOU WANTED - we really really LOVED that -. We checked a few boxes: Leather, 17" Alloys (loved those too), and Sport Suspension (IIRC). That's it. Given that, the price was really good, for a Volvo.

In terms of build quality VW and Volvo are really close. But, I'd think the Rab is a tiny bit better built.
Styling? To each his own. In my eyes, Volvo's wining by a long shot.
Reliability? Had only one issue with the S40 - the driver's window wouldn't close properly which resulted in wind noise right behind the driver's ear. Nothing going wrong on the Rab yet. Statistically: VW and Volvo are pretty close in terms of reliability, I belive.


From my experience now, the VW 2.5 feels less powerful than Volvo's 2.4. Now granted, the Volvo has a manual and the Rab's got a slushbox.

Driving dynamics? Volvo
Wind noise? Volvo (I think the 17" tires play a roll here too)
Parts? Hmm... I don't need to know.

Only thing I hate about the S40 is the awkward door lock/unlock buttons on the front doors, they're just out of place. Otherwise, great little car. The inside looks/feels great, and I still love it even after almost 4 years.

Thing is, Volvos are more of a fashion item if you know what I mean. They just look cool.

[kevlar]

i was shopping for a new car last fall.   going from a tsx, i didnt want to expand per se, just reconfigure my car needs.  the v50 was right in the ballpark but after doing some research i got alot of negative feed back with regards to reliability.   actually, it was downright dismal. on top of that when i told people i was considering it they gasped and said, dude you are becoming a soccer mom, why don't you buy a minivan and get it over with.  that was the nail in the coffin since i really was drooling over potentially buying a bmw 128 and convincing the wife to buy a yaris.  i ended up buying a 3.2L audi avant and everyone loves it.  go figure.  i agree with many of the above comments that volvo needs to work on their image. maybe they do need to go back to being known as the builder of bullet proof boxes that drive for 300k. or offer full service like audi and bmw to prove to people their cars won't become money pits.   anyway you look at it, they seem to be killing themselves by trying to be more like bmw, audi and mercedes, which in my opinion is a big mistake.   

[mhadi]

while I am a huge fan of Volvo, I do not think a price of $47,000 + tax is justified for such a small, decidely non-premium vehicle. In fact, I am buying a new Volvo in the next months, and took a look at all their cars. I prefer a more basic V70 for $40,000 over the V50 - the comparison is huge.

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

[Eric Green]

mhadi:

Basic 08 V70:

US$32,465

v.

CDN$41,995

~CDN$9,000 difference. Time for a quick trip stateside?