As the 60’s rolled on, and a surgence of European technology became prevalent, the Japanese began to observe the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz. It was at this time, that Subaru arrived on the scene. Already a bit late for the party, Subaru used data previously gathered by the competition, and took it in it’s own direction. Subaru actually began to pace a well-known company that had come into it’s own throughout the 60’s, Porsche. This particular German car company’s business model, product structure, and market were far from the goals of most Japanese manufacturers, and were mostly overlooked. Subaru management loved the idea of a novel design becoming a trademark, and the engineering staff could not deny the efficiency of Porsche’s 4-cylinder boxer engines. A boxer engine is also known as a flat four, the cylinders oppose one another like boxers, offering better second order balance than a V-configuration. It is also compact and sits low, keeping the center of gravity lower as well. Also of note (remember this Carrera and Subaru lovers alike) is that by allowing the transfer case and transmission to sit between the axles, it facilitates packaging compact four or all wheel drive systems.

During the period in the early seventies Subaru, to fulfill a Japanese Interior Ministry contract, developed a simple, but effective all-wheel drive system for use in the Forestry Department. It was a small, rugged, reliable 4WD car for use on- and off-road by the Japanese Forestry Service...It lives on today, decades later, as the Subaru Forester.

Subaru AWD has deep roots, and they were really the first passenger car manufacturer to completely embrace AWD.

 

All things considered, I'll take the TSX over this. More reliable, handles well & a better overall package & value.

 

Not quite. The Subaru Forester that we know today in the U.S.was introduced in 1997 as a competitor to Toyota's RAV-4 and Honda's CR-V. It was basically a reworked Impreza with a taller body, larger wheels/tires, and a slightly larger 165 hp engine to the Impreza's 110-142 HP engines. The non-turbo Forester's 165 HP engine still carries on today...as it does in the majority of Subaru products.

Now...you may be correct that Subaru developed a "Forester" decades ago for the Japanese Forestry service, but that is NOT the Forester that is for sale today here in the U.S.

 

Maybe "in spirit" should have been in there somewhere...

 

 

Oh, people need to stop talking about Volvo and safety. Those days of "exclusivity" are over. Now virtually every import car make at the very least equals Volvo's results, and usually exceeds them. "Volvo safety " was/is all marketing.

The new Prius has a stronger safety cell than the new S40.

www.euroncap.com

 

Well, as an employee of a Volvo Dealership, I would like to give my opinion. The S40 is a very eye catching car. We have one in the Passion Red with the body kit, like the one you see in the commercial and it is a head turner.(By the way those beautiful wheels in the picture above is Europe only but trying to get them over here by the end of this year.) The free floating center console is a very nice touch, but many dont even realize that you can store stuff behind it. Later in the year or early next year they are introducing a package where the center console is see-through with a light blue tint to it. The screen on top controls everything from the Climate to the Stereo, and could take some time getting used to because all of the ***** look the same. The S40 has one of the best OEM systems out. 420 watts with Dolby Pro Logic/5.1 Surround Sound through 14 speakers is outstanding. The Optional Navi system pops out the top of the dash like other Volvos and and the ignition is located high on the dash. Pretty cool location but so damn hard to get used to. The ride with the sport suspension is surprisingly stiff, you will think your driving a real sports car. You feel very connected with the road. The power of this car is great in the T5, it gets up and goes with little turbo lag. But like every other Volvo after 85mph it seems like it takes forever to accelerate (MINUS THE S60R and V70R). The 2.4i model is pure crap, those are for people that are looking for a budget Volvo. The only real complaint I have is rear seat room. There is none.

To answer the Haldex thing, Haldex is the name of the company who supplies the AWD systems for Volvo. Yes some part is marketing gimmick but, most of us dont even mention the Haldex system we just call it AWD(Just like how most Stability Control Systems in most cars are supplied from the same damn company and react the same damn way but are under totally different names). But on the other hand the system is slightly different than others. To my understanding most AWD systems react to slip in 1/2 of a wheel turn the Haldex system reacts in 1/7 of a wheel turn making it more responsive than others, thats all. Basically your not going to burn out at all. Can you feel the difference from 1/2 wheel turn and 1/7 wheel turn? HELL NO.

Overall pretty cool car, very shocking that its coming from Volvo but I honestly think its not worth the money. I would step it up to a S60 2.5T or S60AWD. A lot more car for 31-34K.

 

Uhhh ... Ok, I guess. But let's look at some numbers. The 2.5 liter I-5 that the new S40 sports is set-up quite differently than some other Volvo models - hence the relatively low, but, in my opinion, still respectable output numbers - especially full torque availability near idle.

--- Volvo---

The T5 S40 produces 218hp @5000rpm and 236tq @1500rpm-on.

Same displacement motor in the 2.5T S60 (AWD and FWD) produces 208hp @5000rpm and 236tq @1500rpm-on

Same displacement motor in the S60R produces 300hp @5500rpm and 295tq @1950rpm-on
(The S60R supposedly will run to 60mph in under 5.5 seconds with the 6-speed manual.)

The 2.3L I-5 turbo motor in the T5 S60 produces 247hp @5200rpm and 243tq @2400rpm-on

---Subaru---
The Forester XT's 2.5 liter H4 engine (which we all know is seriously underrated) produces 210hp @5600rpm and 235tq @3600rpm

WRX STi 2.5 H4 produces 300hp @6000rpm and 300tq @4000rpm

____________________________________

So ... I guess more than Subaru's 2.5 liter owning Volvo's 2.5 liter - the question really is (for both manufacturer's motors) how soon do you want it blow up?

Volvo sure offers a bunch of choices. I give the S60 and new S40 tentative ... I've never driven either, but I sure wouldn't mind!

 

I was just joking. I know everyone is safe, it's just in my mind, I think Volvo, I think;
26 different airbags
a doctor midget hiding in the center console
a lifetime supply of band-aids
super rollover protection
those life support bags that drop from the roof in airplanes

VolvoI respect but like Caddy, even with new products and goind sportier, it seems odd, that's all.
But I think Volvo is doing a GREAT and FANTASTIC job with it's new products. I was a fan of the old 850 and it's R varient (don't sleep on my Volvo skills)

The other issue is sub 30k luxury cars like the S40, A4 1.8, TSX etc. What the hell is the point? I'd just get a Camry, Accord, even an Altima instead. There is NO SUCH THING as luxury at that price. It's an oxymoron.

 

Ummm...I don't follow...You'd have to be a bit f00ked in the head to blow a motor. And I'd take 300 (or whatever number) of Subaru horsepower over the same, or even greater, number of Volvo horsepower (more on that below).

While we're mag racing, consider this (HP/TQ ratings don't tell the story. At all.):

Volvo S60R:
0-60: 5.5s
1/4 mi: 14.0s
30-50MPH: 13.2s
50-70MPH: 8.7s

F-XT:
0-60: 5.3s
1/4 mi: 13.8s
30-50MPH: 8.4s
50-70MPH: 8.1s

Wow. Imagine that. The Forester is really cranking out about 235HP/265TQ, but it still beats the Volvo's 300HP/295TQ. Hmmmm...Having at that torque down low also means it runs out down low. It's a b____, isn't it? Now, clearly, once we pass the 100MPH mark the Volvo takes the lead and keeps it. But who hell is dumb enough to race a Volvo or a Subaru wagon that fast on public roads? And with 300HP, it really should pull away from something with 235HP and freightcar-like areodynamics. If it didn't, well...

If we keep it in the realm of highly usable, real-world performance (the primary mission of Forester, and perfectly executed at that) the Forester absolutely trounces the Volvo. Look at the 30-50MPH times. That's a real important area, especially when driving stick in variable traffic conditions.

Really, the Volvo may seem intimidating on paper, but any of the EJ255/6/7-powered Subarus can take them on without having much to fear.

So again I say: Volvo's 2.5 turbo = pwn3d by Subaru's 2.5L turbo. Especially considering the price. It's ridiculous that people compare the "R" Volvos to the Audi S and BMW ///M lines when they can't even whoop up on a sorry, plebian Subaru.


1Sick:
You're totally right, and I totally agree with you about those over-priced poseur-*** luxury-sports-whatever cars. Last time I checked, $30K was halfway to a base 911. And I totally didn't direct that statement about Volvo at you, I just get tired of non-car savvy people prating on about Volvo safety like it's some sort of magical thing. If you go back and look at the Volvo crash tests before the mid-90s, they weren't much to talk about. Heck, even the outgoing S40 and current S60 are not at the top of their class by a long stretch...

 

BMW M3 coupe - under 5 seconds to 60.
Volvo S60R - 5.4 seconds to 60.
Audi S4 - 5.6 seconds 0 to 60.
Audi S6 Avant - ? ... slower than the S4.

Of course, the RS6 is a different story entirely, but it looks to me like the S60R edges out the only Audi S offerings here in the US.

It's not a b____ .... it's numbers. Who cares? It's not like any of these cars we're discussing, including your own, routinely see the track where any of this actually matters.

Straight-line performance, especially in the city, means nothing. Turning corners and, equally important, heads is the business of cars in almost every situation and location - and I think the S60R probably accomplishes that task fairly well in addition to [probably] being a blast to drive - which is all I'm attempting to say.

For ~30 thousand dollars I wouldn't buy the new S40 T5 ... I'd pick up an IS 300 and just enjoy it for what it is.

And of course if I was interested in and had the money for a vehicle perfectly mating actual sport and utility - you can bet that I'd make a seriously quick run to Subaru to pick up the car that you're currently driving.

I think you created too much an impassioned defence of Subaru to later call it "sorry" and plebeian. Two things your car - not to mention Subaru's entire lineup (save for the Baha) - is certainly not.

 

We are on the same page. I was just explaining myself to everyone.

 

Not to mention that the Volvo engine is an inline 5-cylinder that is mounted TRANSVERSELY.

The briefs the Swedes wear must hamper blood circulation, like to the brain. The Japanese, on the other hand, r0xx0rz with their bOxxorz.

 

Close...but no cigar. It's true that Volvo is no longer way out in front in this area like it once was.....other manufacturers, especially Mercedes, are catching up. But Volvo, more than any other company, is still at the forefront of new safety technology. The latest example: the XC-90 SUV pioneering the world's first stability system for automotive use that not only reacts to yaw motions....understeering and oversteering.....but excessive body roll motions as well.....critical in top-heavy SUV's that are prone to flipping over.

 

And how does this matter in terms of a Prius or S40 or LS430 flipping over? I think it's ridicuous that Volvo goes to such great lengths to correct and inherently dangerous and useless design.