Review: 2008 Volvo C30 T5
07-15-08, 02:24 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Review: 2008 Volvo C30 T5
A Review of the 2008 Volvo C30 T5 Hatchback
http://www.volvocars.com/us/models/c...s/default.aspx
In a Nutshell: An often-overlooked, safety-oriented, small coupe/hatchback....but somewhat lacking in small-coupe sportiness.
My next scheduled review, per request, is for the 2009 Acura TL, but the 2009 model is not yet available at D.C. area dealerships, so I thought today would be a nice day to take a close look at the Volvo C30. I saw it and looked it over at the D.C. Auto Show in January and had mixed feelings about it. It is Volvo's first relatively small, two-door hatchback in the American market in decades. The front-end styling is typical Volvo; the rear-end more unusual and controversial.....more on that below. I did not find it an ugly car, however, and it did have good space efficiency.
Three versions of the C30 are offered in the American market, all with a 2.5L turbocharged 5 cylinder (hence the T5 designation) and a choice of 6-speed manual or 5-speed Gear-Tronic automatic/sport-shift transmissions. The base 1.0 Version starts at $22,950 and is relatively affordable compared to some of its entry-level German competition. Two upmarket versions are offered, a 2.0 Version and a C30-R-Design Limited Editon, each starting at $25,700. Upmarket editions allow you to choose from dozens of individual options and acccessories, Scion-style...see the Volvo "Build Your Own" C30 website for details. The C30 shares its basic chassis/platform with the Mazda3 and the European-spec Ford Focus. Its handling/steering, however, is quite different from the snappy Mazda3 (I won't comment on the Euro-Focus because, obviously, I have not driven it...the Euro-Focus is much different from the American-spec one).
The C30, as it is quite different from most other U.S.-market Volvos, has been a rather slow seller here, and the average Volvo shop doesn't keep a lot of them in stock. The shop I was at today, for example, only had three of them. That's partly because some customers special-order their cars from the huge list of options/acessories and those cars, of courses, are tailored to each person, rather then have them typically just sitting on the lot for sale. The one I drove....and reviewed......of course, was one not custom-ordered. It was sitting on the lot, ready for sale, a base 1.0 version with automatic and the Climate Package.
I was generally pleased with the C30 and thought it had more good points than bad points.....details below.
Model Reviewed: 2008 Volvo C30 T5 1.0 Version
Base Price: $22,950
Major Options:
Automatic transmission $1250
Climate Package: $675
Metallic Paint: $475
Destination/Freight: $745
List price as reviewed: $26,095
Drivetrain: FWD, 2.5L Turbocharged in-line 5, 227 HP @ 5000 RPM, Torque 236 Ft-lbs. @ 1500-5000 RPM,
5-speed Geartronic automatic transmission with manual Sport-Shift.
EPA Mileage Ratings: 19 City, 27 Highway
Exterior Color: Brilliant Blue Metallic
Interior: Light gray leather
PLUSSES:
Extensive Volvo safety features.
Affordable price.
Peppy turbocharged in-line 5 with wide torque band.
Nicely-done brakes.
Firm but comfortable ride.
Smooth-shifting automatic.
Solid, crisp-feeling shifter.
Good space efficiency inside.
Comfortable, supportive front seats.
Good paint job.
Excellent choice of 17 exterior colors in Custom Build versions.
4 different leather upholstery colors.....even more for Custom Build.
Manual tilt/telescope steering column.
Nice-sounding stereo.
Stereo ***** easy to use.
Excellent straight-back visibility through large rear window.
Relatively good noise isolation by small-car standards.
Extensive, Scion-style factory/dealer accessory selection available for customization.
MINUSES:
Controversial rear-end styling.
Slow steering response.
Noticeable body roll.
Power-sapping transmission.
Cheap-looking dash.
Tight underhood access.
Limited dealer stock.
Confusing center-button display.
Typically European-car extra-cost metallic paint.
No standard cargo compartment cover in base version.
Turbo engine requires premium gas.
New and unproven reliability record.
EXTERIOR:
Walking up to a C30 in a Volvo dealer lot, from the front, it looks more or less like any other regular Volvo passenger car, but, from the sides and rear there is no mistaking the C30 (I'll save a detailed explanation of the rear end for the CARGO AREA/TRUNK section, below). It is the smallest Volvo currently available in the American market, but the design of its roofline gives it good interior space efficiency (again, more on that below).
The sheet metal, as expected of a Volvo, is solid and well-done, as is, of course, the super-rigid body structure and the effective front/rear crush-zones also expected of a Volvo. The hood, both doors, and glass rear hatch close solidly and with no tinniness or rattles. All exterior hardware, trim, and logos are solid and well-done, of high quality (though the car itself is not lavishly trimmed). The paint job itself is fine, with good texture, smooth application, and minimal orange peel, but only six colors are offered, unless you go up to a custom-order version. Sweedish carmakers have apparantly copied the annoying German habit of charging extra for metallic paint colors....the Metallic Blue on my test car (one of the six standard, base-car colors, BTW) cost $475.
UNDERHOOD:
The hood is fairly solid, though it appears to be aluminum rather than steel, and is held up with one large strut on the right side rather than two smaller ones like most strut-equipped hoods. Underneath, the fairly small available space is taken up rather tightly by the in-line 5-cylinder, its turbo hardware/ducting, and the accessories. The in-line five is slightly longer than most in-line fours, and, with the automatic transmission/final drive unit to the right (behind) it, makes for some sardine-can clearances. The turbo assemblies and ducts take up most of the space in front of the engine, between the block and the radiator/fans. The battery is crammed in tightly on the right, and is mostly covered up by a plastic housing. The yellow-marked oil dipstick is in a narrow crevasse between the turbo housing and the radiator. Most of the rest of the underhood reserviors and components are shoved to the back or the extreme sides because that is all the space that is left. The engine, however, to its credit, doesn't have the big, annoying plastic cover that many of today's engines have....it has a smaller, less obtrusive one.
INTERIOR:
Inside, the car, IMO, is mixed bag....but mostly positive. The light gray leather seats in my test car were well-shaped even for taller adults, comfortable, and had supportive but not obtrusive side bolsters. The leather itself was reasonably attractive and plush, but of course not Lexus or Jaguar-soft. Front headroom, thanks to the tall roof and lack of a sunroof, was fine...especially if you used the Euro-type manual pump-handle and pumped the seat all the way down. In back, the roofline also allowed headroom for adults, although legroom was tight if the front seat was moved back and adjusted for a tall driver. Nice pockets to hold things are mesh-sown into the backs of the front seats, even on the base model. The gauges are simple and Volvo-clear, with circular designs and white-on-black color contrast. The dash itself, however, IMO, has too much of a cheap K-mart look to it, with a lot of black starkness. The silver-plastic, waterfall-shaped, swoop-down lower center-dash is not the worst painted-silver plastic I've seen by a long shot, but nevertheless, IMO, would look far better with the special-order wood trim (not available on the base model). The two large round easy-to-use ***** for the stereo are simple and well-designed, and the stereo itself very nice, too.....its sound quality seems a step up from that of many German cars (Of course, the excellence of 80's Heavy Metal like Judas Priest, Quiet Riot, AC/DC, Motley Crue, Def Leppard, etc.....sounds good on almost anything). The center-stack buttons, however, except for the aforementioned easy-to-use stereo volume/tuning *****, could use some improvement....they are too small, crammed too close together, and have small, hard-to-see labels.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Perhaps the most controversial part of the car. A relatively high, space-efficient roofline drops abruptly down with a very large, hinged glass rear hatch (no metal frame) that is clear and unobstructed all the way down to bumper height. I'm not a fan of the general look, but there is no denying the excellent visibility that huge glass panel gives you.....you can see the road surface right down behind the car and the tops of large vehicles behind you. Tall, tapered brake/tail/back-up lights adorn either side of the big glass hatch. Lift the solid glass hatch, and, inside, the cargo area is covered with so-so-grade gray carpet. The 1.0 version lacks a cargo-compartment cover...an important feature that keeps prying eyes off your valuables (unless you just throw a blanket over them). A car of this price, IMO, should have one....while not an expensive vehicle by any means, it is still not an econobox. A fairly good amount of cargo can be carried, however, if you drop the twin fold-down rear seats, due to the design of the roofline. Under the floor's carpeted pull-up panel lurks a full-sized, temporary spare tire/wheel....OK for a car of this price class, even though, as stated, it is not an econobox.
ON THE ROAD:
Like the interior, a generally mixed bag. Start up the turbo five with a plastic, box-shaped "key" inserted into a rectangular dash hole and twisted like a regular key. The engine fires up and idles reasonably smoothly, but not with Honda/Toyota silkiness, perhaps because of the odd number of cylinders affecting the firing order. The engine itself, though drinking premium gas, is a relatively nice powerplant, with a wide torque band that produces peak torque from as low as 1500 RPM to 5000 RPM, which is also its HP peak (the car I drove today had some miles on it, so I could give the engine a few more RPMs than I usually do). Turbo lag is almost unnoticeable, with a healthy shove in the back coming almost simultaneously with the gas pedal. Volvo, in fact, may have underrated the HP/torque of this engine, perhaps for insurance reasons (a growing trend with automakers these days).
When the engine says "Jump", however, the Geartronic Sport-Shift transmission doesn't always say "How High"? The engine has enough spunk to get you going in a hurry, but the transmission's smoothness (not that I'm necessarily criticzing smoothness) and its rather lazy 1-2 upshift tends to blunt some of the engine's torque. Don't get me wrong......the car is quick enough with the automatic for all normal and reasonably spirited driving, but one gets the sense that with the manual transmission, there would be a noticeable improvement in acceleration. Keep that in mind when shopping for this car. And, despite the lack of shift-paddles for the auto-manual shift function (it is done solely with the shift-lever), the lever itself is well-designed, solid, durable, slick-operating, and a pleasure to use.
The steering feel itself is slightly heavier, and transmits more road feel than the appliance-like, novicaine-numbness and lightness found on most other Volvos. But actual steering response, IMO, is not impressive, especially when compared to its entry-level BMW competitors. The response is slow by small, sporty-coupe/hatchback standards, and there is a small but noticeable amount of body roll. We're not talking Lincoln Town-car sloppiness here, but this is not a car, at least in standard form, that is going to carve up the twisties like a Mazda Miata or Honda S2000. Part of it, of course, is in the nose-heaviness of the front-drive platform, but, even accounting for that, Volvo is just not a manufacturer than specializes in sports-sedan chassis performance. They can do reasonably-well in the sports-oriented department, but if you want the Ultimate Driving Machine, then you just have to go to the dealers that sell them (BMW).
However, even though this is not a hard-edged sport coupe, the chassis is otherwise well-done. The short wheelbase and firm suspension do produce some fore/aft porpoising over large bumps/humps, but ride comfort is fairly good and steady despite the firmness. This is a car whose ride/handling combination I could live with on a daily basis. The chassis seems stable and hard to upset....the understeer, of course, adds a little to that, but that helps at higher speeds. Road/tire noise, despite the open rear cargo area that tends to amplify such types of noises, is well-muted...hard to acheive in a small hatchback. Wind noise is well-muted as well, at least by the standards of this type of car. Brakes are well-done, with a well-placed pedal that does not hang up big feet (and mine are a REAL test), reasonably firm feel, lack of sponginess, and quick, even response.
THE VERDICT:
Volvo, IMO, has done a relatively nice job with the C30. Yes, the rear-end is awkward-looking, but, as noted above, that huge glass panel gives excellent rear visibility. The high, non-sloping rear roofline and rear seat can actually accomodate some adults. The car seems well-made overall, but, is still too new in the American market for Consumer Reports to have an established reliability record (similiar S40 and V50 sedan/wagon versions range from average to worse-than-average). It rides reasonably well despite a firm chassis, has good road/tire/wind noise isolation for an open-back small car, and has more than enough power for normal driving from the turbo five. And, of course, it has the noted Volvo safety features.
But several things, IMO, need improvement as well. Steering response is too slow for a small sport-oriented hatchback. Body roll needs a little more snubbing. Too many underhood components are crammed in too tightly........a non-turbo version of this engine, currently not offered, would help matters there a little, as well as allow the use of cheaper regular gas. The dash could look a little less K-mart-like. The confusing, tightly crammed center-stack buttons need to be spread out more and have better labeling. And the base version needs a cargo-cover, which would bring it more in line with the car's price.
http://www.volvocars.com/us/models/c...s/default.aspx
In a Nutshell: An often-overlooked, safety-oriented, small coupe/hatchback....but somewhat lacking in small-coupe sportiness.
My next scheduled review, per request, is for the 2009 Acura TL, but the 2009 model is not yet available at D.C. area dealerships, so I thought today would be a nice day to take a close look at the Volvo C30. I saw it and looked it over at the D.C. Auto Show in January and had mixed feelings about it. It is Volvo's first relatively small, two-door hatchback in the American market in decades. The front-end styling is typical Volvo; the rear-end more unusual and controversial.....more on that below. I did not find it an ugly car, however, and it did have good space efficiency.
Three versions of the C30 are offered in the American market, all with a 2.5L turbocharged 5 cylinder (hence the T5 designation) and a choice of 6-speed manual or 5-speed Gear-Tronic automatic/sport-shift transmissions. The base 1.0 Version starts at $22,950 and is relatively affordable compared to some of its entry-level German competition. Two upmarket versions are offered, a 2.0 Version and a C30-R-Design Limited Editon, each starting at $25,700. Upmarket editions allow you to choose from dozens of individual options and acccessories, Scion-style...see the Volvo "Build Your Own" C30 website for details. The C30 shares its basic chassis/platform with the Mazda3 and the European-spec Ford Focus. Its handling/steering, however, is quite different from the snappy Mazda3 (I won't comment on the Euro-Focus because, obviously, I have not driven it...the Euro-Focus is much different from the American-spec one).
The C30, as it is quite different from most other U.S.-market Volvos, has been a rather slow seller here, and the average Volvo shop doesn't keep a lot of them in stock. The shop I was at today, for example, only had three of them. That's partly because some customers special-order their cars from the huge list of options/acessories and those cars, of courses, are tailored to each person, rather then have them typically just sitting on the lot for sale. The one I drove....and reviewed......of course, was one not custom-ordered. It was sitting on the lot, ready for sale, a base 1.0 version with automatic and the Climate Package.
I was generally pleased with the C30 and thought it had more good points than bad points.....details below.
Model Reviewed: 2008 Volvo C30 T5 1.0 Version
Base Price: $22,950
Major Options:
Automatic transmission $1250
Climate Package: $675
Metallic Paint: $475
Destination/Freight: $745
List price as reviewed: $26,095
Drivetrain: FWD, 2.5L Turbocharged in-line 5, 227 HP @ 5000 RPM, Torque 236 Ft-lbs. @ 1500-5000 RPM,
5-speed Geartronic automatic transmission with manual Sport-Shift.
EPA Mileage Ratings: 19 City, 27 Highway
Exterior Color: Brilliant Blue Metallic
Interior: Light gray leather
PLUSSES:
Extensive Volvo safety features.
Affordable price.
Peppy turbocharged in-line 5 with wide torque band.
Nicely-done brakes.
Firm but comfortable ride.
Smooth-shifting automatic.
Solid, crisp-feeling shifter.
Good space efficiency inside.
Comfortable, supportive front seats.
Good paint job.
Excellent choice of 17 exterior colors in Custom Build versions.
4 different leather upholstery colors.....even more for Custom Build.
Manual tilt/telescope steering column.
Nice-sounding stereo.
Stereo ***** easy to use.
Excellent straight-back visibility through large rear window.
Relatively good noise isolation by small-car standards.
Extensive, Scion-style factory/dealer accessory selection available for customization.
MINUSES:
Controversial rear-end styling.
Slow steering response.
Noticeable body roll.
Power-sapping transmission.
Cheap-looking dash.
Tight underhood access.
Limited dealer stock.
Confusing center-button display.
Typically European-car extra-cost metallic paint.
No standard cargo compartment cover in base version.
Turbo engine requires premium gas.
New and unproven reliability record.
EXTERIOR:
Walking up to a C30 in a Volvo dealer lot, from the front, it looks more or less like any other regular Volvo passenger car, but, from the sides and rear there is no mistaking the C30 (I'll save a detailed explanation of the rear end for the CARGO AREA/TRUNK section, below). It is the smallest Volvo currently available in the American market, but the design of its roofline gives it good interior space efficiency (again, more on that below).
The sheet metal, as expected of a Volvo, is solid and well-done, as is, of course, the super-rigid body structure and the effective front/rear crush-zones also expected of a Volvo. The hood, both doors, and glass rear hatch close solidly and with no tinniness or rattles. All exterior hardware, trim, and logos are solid and well-done, of high quality (though the car itself is not lavishly trimmed). The paint job itself is fine, with good texture, smooth application, and minimal orange peel, but only six colors are offered, unless you go up to a custom-order version. Sweedish carmakers have apparantly copied the annoying German habit of charging extra for metallic paint colors....the Metallic Blue on my test car (one of the six standard, base-car colors, BTW) cost $475.
UNDERHOOD:
The hood is fairly solid, though it appears to be aluminum rather than steel, and is held up with one large strut on the right side rather than two smaller ones like most strut-equipped hoods. Underneath, the fairly small available space is taken up rather tightly by the in-line 5-cylinder, its turbo hardware/ducting, and the accessories. The in-line five is slightly longer than most in-line fours, and, with the automatic transmission/final drive unit to the right (behind) it, makes for some sardine-can clearances. The turbo assemblies and ducts take up most of the space in front of the engine, between the block and the radiator/fans. The battery is crammed in tightly on the right, and is mostly covered up by a plastic housing. The yellow-marked oil dipstick is in a narrow crevasse between the turbo housing and the radiator. Most of the rest of the underhood reserviors and components are shoved to the back or the extreme sides because that is all the space that is left. The engine, however, to its credit, doesn't have the big, annoying plastic cover that many of today's engines have....it has a smaller, less obtrusive one.
INTERIOR:
Inside, the car, IMO, is mixed bag....but mostly positive. The light gray leather seats in my test car were well-shaped even for taller adults, comfortable, and had supportive but not obtrusive side bolsters. The leather itself was reasonably attractive and plush, but of course not Lexus or Jaguar-soft. Front headroom, thanks to the tall roof and lack of a sunroof, was fine...especially if you used the Euro-type manual pump-handle and pumped the seat all the way down. In back, the roofline also allowed headroom for adults, although legroom was tight if the front seat was moved back and adjusted for a tall driver. Nice pockets to hold things are mesh-sown into the backs of the front seats, even on the base model. The gauges are simple and Volvo-clear, with circular designs and white-on-black color contrast. The dash itself, however, IMO, has too much of a cheap K-mart look to it, with a lot of black starkness. The silver-plastic, waterfall-shaped, swoop-down lower center-dash is not the worst painted-silver plastic I've seen by a long shot, but nevertheless, IMO, would look far better with the special-order wood trim (not available on the base model). The two large round easy-to-use ***** for the stereo are simple and well-designed, and the stereo itself very nice, too.....its sound quality seems a step up from that of many German cars (Of course, the excellence of 80's Heavy Metal like Judas Priest, Quiet Riot, AC/DC, Motley Crue, Def Leppard, etc.....sounds good on almost anything). The center-stack buttons, however, except for the aforementioned easy-to-use stereo volume/tuning *****, could use some improvement....they are too small, crammed too close together, and have small, hard-to-see labels.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Perhaps the most controversial part of the car. A relatively high, space-efficient roofline drops abruptly down with a very large, hinged glass rear hatch (no metal frame) that is clear and unobstructed all the way down to bumper height. I'm not a fan of the general look, but there is no denying the excellent visibility that huge glass panel gives you.....you can see the road surface right down behind the car and the tops of large vehicles behind you. Tall, tapered brake/tail/back-up lights adorn either side of the big glass hatch. Lift the solid glass hatch, and, inside, the cargo area is covered with so-so-grade gray carpet. The 1.0 version lacks a cargo-compartment cover...an important feature that keeps prying eyes off your valuables (unless you just throw a blanket over them). A car of this price, IMO, should have one....while not an expensive vehicle by any means, it is still not an econobox. A fairly good amount of cargo can be carried, however, if you drop the twin fold-down rear seats, due to the design of the roofline. Under the floor's carpeted pull-up panel lurks a full-sized, temporary spare tire/wheel....OK for a car of this price class, even though, as stated, it is not an econobox.
ON THE ROAD:
Like the interior, a generally mixed bag. Start up the turbo five with a plastic, box-shaped "key" inserted into a rectangular dash hole and twisted like a regular key. The engine fires up and idles reasonably smoothly, but not with Honda/Toyota silkiness, perhaps because of the odd number of cylinders affecting the firing order. The engine itself, though drinking premium gas, is a relatively nice powerplant, with a wide torque band that produces peak torque from as low as 1500 RPM to 5000 RPM, which is also its HP peak (the car I drove today had some miles on it, so I could give the engine a few more RPMs than I usually do). Turbo lag is almost unnoticeable, with a healthy shove in the back coming almost simultaneously with the gas pedal. Volvo, in fact, may have underrated the HP/torque of this engine, perhaps for insurance reasons (a growing trend with automakers these days).
When the engine says "Jump", however, the Geartronic Sport-Shift transmission doesn't always say "How High"? The engine has enough spunk to get you going in a hurry, but the transmission's smoothness (not that I'm necessarily criticzing smoothness) and its rather lazy 1-2 upshift tends to blunt some of the engine's torque. Don't get me wrong......the car is quick enough with the automatic for all normal and reasonably spirited driving, but one gets the sense that with the manual transmission, there would be a noticeable improvement in acceleration. Keep that in mind when shopping for this car. And, despite the lack of shift-paddles for the auto-manual shift function (it is done solely with the shift-lever), the lever itself is well-designed, solid, durable, slick-operating, and a pleasure to use.
The steering feel itself is slightly heavier, and transmits more road feel than the appliance-like, novicaine-numbness and lightness found on most other Volvos. But actual steering response, IMO, is not impressive, especially when compared to its entry-level BMW competitors. The response is slow by small, sporty-coupe/hatchback standards, and there is a small but noticeable amount of body roll. We're not talking Lincoln Town-car sloppiness here, but this is not a car, at least in standard form, that is going to carve up the twisties like a Mazda Miata or Honda S2000. Part of it, of course, is in the nose-heaviness of the front-drive platform, but, even accounting for that, Volvo is just not a manufacturer than specializes in sports-sedan chassis performance. They can do reasonably-well in the sports-oriented department, but if you want the Ultimate Driving Machine, then you just have to go to the dealers that sell them (BMW).
However, even though this is not a hard-edged sport coupe, the chassis is otherwise well-done. The short wheelbase and firm suspension do produce some fore/aft porpoising over large bumps/humps, but ride comfort is fairly good and steady despite the firmness. This is a car whose ride/handling combination I could live with on a daily basis. The chassis seems stable and hard to upset....the understeer, of course, adds a little to that, but that helps at higher speeds. Road/tire noise, despite the open rear cargo area that tends to amplify such types of noises, is well-muted...hard to acheive in a small hatchback. Wind noise is well-muted as well, at least by the standards of this type of car. Brakes are well-done, with a well-placed pedal that does not hang up big feet (and mine are a REAL test), reasonably firm feel, lack of sponginess, and quick, even response.
THE VERDICT:
Volvo, IMO, has done a relatively nice job with the C30. Yes, the rear-end is awkward-looking, but, as noted above, that huge glass panel gives excellent rear visibility. The high, non-sloping rear roofline and rear seat can actually accomodate some adults. The car seems well-made overall, but, is still too new in the American market for Consumer Reports to have an established reliability record (similiar S40 and V50 sedan/wagon versions range from average to worse-than-average). It rides reasonably well despite a firm chassis, has good road/tire/wind noise isolation for an open-back small car, and has more than enough power for normal driving from the turbo five. And, of course, it has the noted Volvo safety features.
But several things, IMO, need improvement as well. Steering response is too slow for a small sport-oriented hatchback. Body roll needs a little more snubbing. Too many underhood components are crammed in too tightly........a non-turbo version of this engine, currently not offered, would help matters there a little, as well as allow the use of cheaper regular gas. The dash could look a little less K-mart-like. The confusing, tightly crammed center-stack buttons need to be spread out more and have better labeling. And the base version needs a cargo-cover, which would bring it more in line with the car's price.
Last edited by mmarshall; 07-15-08 at 03:46 PM.
07-15-08, 02:46 PM
#2
Thanks Mike.
One CL member got one earlier this year (can't remember who it was; we met in Irvine). I actually liked the styling in general: unique, functional, and spacious. Yes, quality materials are not its forte, but I think it's o.k. for what it offers.
It is rather powerful for a small car, but I would prefer if something this small went the econo-box way: simplify the engine, and cut the price. I just don't see the C30 being as sport-oriented as other compact hatches such as a MazdaSpeed3 or Impreza WRX wagon, but I guess if Volvo wants to play that game, let them do so. Too bad steering response is lacking...
One CL member got one earlier this year (can't remember who it was; we met in Irvine). I actually liked the styling in general: unique, functional, and spacious. Yes, quality materials are not its forte, but I think it's o.k. for what it offers.
It is rather powerful for a small car, but I would prefer if something this small went the econo-box way: simplify the engine, and cut the price. I just don't see the C30 being as sport-oriented as other compact hatches such as a MazdaSpeed3 or Impreza WRX wagon, but I guess if Volvo wants to play that game, let them do so. Too bad steering response is lacking...
Last edited by PhilipMSPT; 07-15-08 at 02:50 PM.
07-15-08, 03:27 PM
#4
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
07-15-08, 03:37 PM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Anytime.
The C30, like most Volvos, DOES seem to use quality materials just about everywhere except some of the dash trim....and, as you note, it is space-efficient, thanks to the roofline and lack of a sunroof.
Agreed. They could start by just tossing out the turbo, at least on the base version. That would lower the price, leave a normally-aspirated, reasonably peppy 5-cylinder that would use regular instead of premium, probably get better mileage, and be easier to work on and service underhood as well.
Even if dumping the turbo costs, say, 50 HP/torque, that would still leave around 180, plenty for a car this size, particularly with the 6-speed manual transmission.
Well, like I said in the review, the C30 is not a Buick or Lincoln Town Car when it comes to roly-poly handling and steering response......far from it. It just seems that way compared to some of its competitors, particularly the BMW 1-series.
And, since you brought up the Mazda3, the C30 is done on the same general platform, as is its brother S40 and V50. The Mazda3, however, particularly in the top-level hatchback and MazdaSpeed3 versions (see my review of the MazdaSpeed3) has noticeaby more responsive handling.....and a stiffer ride to match.
One CL member got one earlier this year (can't remember who it was; we met in Irvine). I actually liked the styling in general: unique, functional, and spacious. Yes, quality materials are not its forte, but I think it's o.k. for what it offers.
It is rather powerful for a small car, but I would prefer if something this small went the econo-box way: simplify the engine, and cut the price.
Even if dumping the turbo costs, say, 50 HP/torque, that would still leave around 180, plenty for a car this size, particularly with the 6-speed manual transmission.
I just don't see the C30 being as sport-oriented as other compact hatches such as a MazdaSpeed3 or Impreza WRX wagon, but I guess if Volvo wants to play that game, let them do so. Too bad steering response is lacking...
And, since you brought up the Mazda3, the C30 is done on the same general platform, as is its brother S40 and V50. The Mazda3, however, particularly in the top-level hatchback and MazdaSpeed3 versions (see my review of the MazdaSpeed3) has noticeaby more responsive handling.....and a stiffer ride to match.
Last edited by mmarshall; 07-15-08 at 03:45 PM.
07-15-08, 04:18 PM
#6
Lexus Test Driver
In addition to my IS350 I also have a new 2008 C30 a version 2 which is an upgraded version of the one that was tested here. I can make some comments about it after several months of ownership.
The looks. I don't think anything on the road today other than a Smart fortwo will get you more looks. Nothing short of an exotic car at least. Everywhere I go in any neighborhood I get compliments on the car. Too many to count now. Although I did get one a-hole comment from a drunk guy coming out of a bar that commented to his all female group that said... Hey Liz there's that car you wanted!!! and it's a DUDE driving it!!! BUAHAHA. I wanted to yell out HEY MAN IT'S MY WIFE'S CAR!!! but that'll only make it worse.. lol Looks wise it's the closest thing to driving a UFO on wheels. Everyone stares but nobody knows what it is. Version 1 looks kinda blah but the version 2 is a stunner.. at least I think so.
Power- The turbo 5 engine is rough compared to my silky V-6 in the lex. There is noticable turbo lag from 2000rpm and below above that it's okay..
Mod potential- not bad... it's got a turbo and there are several tuners available that can take it to over 300hp. If you don't want to touch the cats then you can go up to 260hp with a reflash.
Fuel- Actually you don't need to use premium. Volvo has stated you can use regular but you won't get all of the power available. I use midgrade myself. The damn thing has really bad gas milage though like 21 mpg in mixed compared to my is350 that gets 23mpg mixed and an extra 100hp!!!
Suspension- flatter and more nimble than a stock IS350 steering feel is firmer too compared to my 06. I have the version 2 though that includes upgraded bigger sway bars and larger wheel and tire package so it's different than the one reviewed by mmarshall.
Interior- Dash: I would say nicer than the one reviewed as well because in my version 2 it comes with a real aluminum dash not the fake stuff in the version 1. Green backlighting is kinda 80's but it's a mint green so it's not too bad.
Seats: The seats are much more comfortable than my Lexus.. Volvo knows how to make damn comfortable seats! Leather however on my Lexus is much better so I got the fabric two toned seats on my C30. The combo can't be beat.
Stereo: The best stock stereo ever! I have the top of the line Dynaudio system that comes with the version 2 only and the stock lexus system CAN'T TOUCH IT not even close. Mark Levinson can't either. This is the best stock system I've ever heard.
Cabin Noise: surprisingly it's just as quiet as my IS350
Interior roominess: about the same size as my IS350 but harder to get in and out of course since it's a 2dr. No trunk either but a more useful hatchback config instead.
Fit n' Finish- Lexus is much better almost goes without saying. On the C30 I've got some window wind noises some back seat squeeks and rattles. Window rattles and some suspension groans. Paint also has quite a bit of orange peel which sucks.
Overall not too bad for a car that only cost me 28k out the door. It's way more unique than the lexus. NOBODY HAS ONE!!! Power is decent better than say a IS250 at least heheheh. Pretty safe I'm sure but I don't wanna crash it to find out of course. For me it's a great 2nd that's uniquely good looking and fairly sporty yet still luxurious. It has a nice interior with real aluminum dash and door trim and a superb top of the line Dynaudio stereo system. Only thing I would really like is better gas mileage.
here's a pic of the version 2.. looks much nicer than the version 1 pics above.
The looks. I don't think anything on the road today other than a Smart fortwo will get you more looks. Nothing short of an exotic car at least. Everywhere I go in any neighborhood I get compliments on the car. Too many to count now. Although I did get one a-hole comment from a drunk guy coming out of a bar that commented to his all female group that said... Hey Liz there's that car you wanted!!! and it's a DUDE driving it!!! BUAHAHA. I wanted to yell out HEY MAN IT'S MY WIFE'S CAR!!! but that'll only make it worse.. lol Looks wise it's the closest thing to driving a UFO on wheels. Everyone stares but nobody knows what it is. Version 1 looks kinda blah but the version 2 is a stunner.. at least I think so.
Power- The turbo 5 engine is rough compared to my silky V-6 in the lex. There is noticable turbo lag from 2000rpm and below above that it's okay..
Mod potential- not bad... it's got a turbo and there are several tuners available that can take it to over 300hp. If you don't want to touch the cats then you can go up to 260hp with a reflash.
Fuel- Actually you don't need to use premium. Volvo has stated you can use regular but you won't get all of the power available. I use midgrade myself. The damn thing has really bad gas milage though like 21 mpg in mixed compared to my is350 that gets 23mpg mixed and an extra 100hp!!!
Suspension- flatter and more nimble than a stock IS350 steering feel is firmer too compared to my 06. I have the version 2 though that includes upgraded bigger sway bars and larger wheel and tire package so it's different than the one reviewed by mmarshall.
Interior- Dash: I would say nicer than the one reviewed as well because in my version 2 it comes with a real aluminum dash not the fake stuff in the version 1. Green backlighting is kinda 80's but it's a mint green so it's not too bad.
Seats: The seats are much more comfortable than my Lexus.. Volvo knows how to make damn comfortable seats! Leather however on my Lexus is much better so I got the fabric two toned seats on my C30. The combo can't be beat.
Stereo: The best stock stereo ever! I have the top of the line Dynaudio system that comes with the version 2 only and the stock lexus system CAN'T TOUCH IT not even close. Mark Levinson can't either. This is the best stock system I've ever heard.
Cabin Noise: surprisingly it's just as quiet as my IS350
Interior roominess: about the same size as my IS350 but harder to get in and out of course since it's a 2dr. No trunk either but a more useful hatchback config instead.
Fit n' Finish- Lexus is much better almost goes without saying. On the C30 I've got some window wind noises some back seat squeeks and rattles. Window rattles and some suspension groans. Paint also has quite a bit of orange peel which sucks.
Overall not too bad for a car that only cost me 28k out the door. It's way more unique than the lexus. NOBODY HAS ONE!!! Power is decent better than say a IS250 at least heheheh. Pretty safe I'm sure but I don't wanna crash it to find out of course. For me it's a great 2nd that's uniquely good looking and fairly sporty yet still luxurious. It has a nice interior with real aluminum dash and door trim and a superb top of the line Dynaudio stereo system. Only thing I would really like is better gas mileage.
here's a pic of the version 2.. looks much nicer than the version 1 pics above.
Last edited by ba-b4; 07-15-08 at 04:26 PM.
07-15-08, 05:22 PM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
You apparantly have one, as you indicate, with a more aggressive chassis and tires than the one I reviewed. Yes, when Premium is "required" or recommended, you can (sometimes) get away with 87 Octane, but it is best to use 91-93, especially with a turbo. The engineers put in knock sensors to retard the spark timing way back so it can run on crap gasoline, but that was not necessarily intended to be a permanent feature....only temporary like if you are in Mexico and cannot get 91-93 octane.
Virtually all turbos have some lag (you stated that you didn't notice much above 2000 RPM).....and Volvo has done a good job in masking in in this car.
And even below 2000, it's not a big deal because the engine makes peak torque from as low as 1500. What IS noticeable, like I said in the review, is that the Geartronic transmission, with its fluid torque converter, filters out a little of that power...not a huge amount, but noticeable. You can see it in the RPMs jumping but the car lagging a half-second or so....that's the transmission allowing slippage in the non-lock-up phase.
Lexus fit-and-finish USED to be markedly better than Volvo's...and Lexus paint jobs are still markedly better, but, otherwise, some new Lexus products, especially the new ES350, have been disappointing compared to their predecessors. The ES350 I reviewed had less-impressive interior materials than the older ES330 and more dash squeaks/creaks to boot.
You are right about the C30's comfortable front seats. I found them nicer to sit on than Volvo's own S80....a far more expensive car.
Trending Topics
07-15-08, 07:49 PM
#8
Lexus Test Driver
Congragulations on your purchase....and thanks for responding You apparantly have one, as you indicate, with a more aggressive chassis and tires than the one I reviewed.
Yes, when Premium is "required" or recommended, you can (sometimes) get away with 87 Octane, but it is best to use 91-93, especially with a turbo. The engineers put in knock sensors to retard the spark timing way back so it can run on crap gasoline, but that was not necessarily intended to be a permanent feature....only temporary like if you are in Mexico and cannot get 91-93 octane.
You apparantly have one, as you indicate, with a more aggressive chassis and tires than the one I reviewed. Yes, when Premium is "required" or recommended, you can (sometimes) get away with 87 Octane, but it is best to use 91-93, especially with a turbo. The engineers put in knock sensors to retard the spark timing way back so it can run on crap gasoline, but that was not necessarily intended to be a permanent feature....only temporary like if you are in Mexico and cannot get 91-93 octane.
I don't gun that car anyway.. I have the IS350 for that heheh so I figure for cruising around midgrade should be ok.. 
07-16-08, 04:31 AM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Handles like one, too. 
But, in all honesty, those squared-off body lines that seem to turn some people off also help space efficiency inside.....particularly in headroom. Jelly-bean/aero styling is not the way to go if you want room inside.
And if you think the C30 is shaped like a hearse, may I remind you of past Volvos?
But, in all honesty, those squared-off body lines that seem to turn some people off also help space efficiency inside.....particularly in headroom. Jelly-bean/aero styling is not the way to go if you want room inside.
And if you think the C30 is shaped like a hearse, may I remind you of past Volvos?
Last edited by mmarshall; 07-16-08 at 04:37 AM.
07-16-08, 05:05 AM
#12
Super Moderator
I had at least one friend at my track back in Mexico who got one of these and is modifying it as we speak, but this C30 really didn't lose much at altitude clocking a 15.2 in the 1/4 mile at 7,411 feet just when it was stock. Being able to see out the rear well is really nice, that's something I always look for in a vehicle (one reason I like my RX300, too).
07-16-08, 05:22 AM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
but this C30 really didn't lose much at altitude clocking a 15.2 in the 1/4 mile at 7,411 feet just when it was stock. Being able to see out the rear well is really nice, that's something I always look for in a vehicle (one reason I like my RX300, too).
You are correct about the rear glass. Visibility straight out the back is excellent.....I noted that in my review.
Last edited by mmarshall; 07-16-08 at 05:26 AM.
07-16-08, 06:25 AM
#14
Super Moderator
Volvo, oddly for being such a conservative auto company, markets the C30 more or less like a Scion, offering a large array of dealer/factory-approved custom parts and accessories (see the website for details). With the C30, you don't necessarilt have to go aftermarket or stick on parts that will void the warranty.
I take it the 15.2 was with a 6-speed manual? That would be more likely with a stick than the Geartronic automatic. You also have to remember that a turbo such as this one keep the HP/torque levels from dropping as fast at higher altitudes as with a normally-aspirated engine. That is why many piston-powered aircraft have turbos.
You are correct about the rear glass. Visibility straight out the back is excellent.....I noted that in my review.
I take it the 15.2 was with a 6-speed manual? That would be more likely with a stick than the Geartronic automatic. You also have to remember that a turbo such as this one keep the HP/torque levels from dropping as fast at higher altitudes as with a normally-aspirated engine. That is why many piston-powered aircraft have turbos.
You are correct about the rear glass. Visibility straight out the back is excellent.....I noted that in my review.
The odd thing at that altitude was that some turbocharged vehicles just seemed to lose way more than other competitors, while some vehicles stayed a lot closer to their sea level times. I also think the type of gas used played a role. However, the Volvo I though did a good job.
07-16-08, 11:34 AM
#15
Lexus Test Driver
Volvo, oddly for being such a conservative auto company, markets the C30 more or less like a Scion, offering a large array of dealer/factory-approved custom parts and accessories (see the website for details). With the C30, you don't necessarilt have to go aftermarket or stick on parts that will void the warranty.
The C30 has lots of factory available customizations but none of those are really performance mods. For that there's these tuners...
http://www.ipdusa.com/Volvo-C30/c-1-81/
http://www.heicosportivna.com/mainfr...lang=en&e1=495
http://www.eurosporttuning.ca/volvo_...ance_parts.php
me likey
I myself am probably going to go with the various stage 1 tunes good for about 260hp. Stage 2 would be nicer but I don't want to remove any catalytic converters on my car.