SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

38 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello everyone, first time poster.

I just purchased my new Atlantic Blue S40, pretty much loaded with every option except the premier sound system and the cold weather package.

I used to have an Audi A4 1.8T and loved that car, and feel like I can lay down some feedback on what I like and dislike between the two.

The good
Stock power is better than the A4 and it is immediatley obvious. Chipped 1.8T and a manual 1.8T have more speed than the S40.

The oil filter is in a normal place on the 1.9T, at least based on where I think it is (I haven't jacked the car up yet). Changing the 1.8T's oil filter is a major hassle, and almost worth paying someone else to do it.

Expendable costs are much, much lower. I got about 20mpg avg on my 1.8T, and so far I've been averaging 26mpg on my 1.9T. Dealer told me to use 87 octane, and so far it's been ok, but if I hear one ping I am switching up to 91 octane. My 1.8T was 91 octane only.

The bad
Options are horribly overpriced. Sunroof is $1200 on the S40, and $500 on the mid year 2000 A4. The CD Player heat unit is very costly too.

The sport option on the S40 is a joke. The leather steering wheel is nice, but the spoiler and foglights don't really make sense as a 'sport' option. The foglights should be part of the cold weather option

The A4's sport option is $850, includes 17" rims & tires, 20mm lower suspension & swaybars, and the leather steering wheel.

No free maintenance period. That's ok with me as long as the check engine light is resettable by the user, and the oil filter is easily accessible.

The CD prewiring option is silly. It should have been included stock, especially at a cost of $35. My car doesn't have it :>(

Torque steer on the S40 is really noticeable, wheras the Quattro evens out applying the power.

THe same
Stock suspension on both cars are about the same in terms of performance. The S40 is a little more 'nervous', and seems to be ready to jump. The A4's is a little more neutral but it lacks a 'snap' to its movements. The s40 has a lot more body roll than a stock A4. The A4's sport suspension option is pretty good. I consider the BMW 3-series as having the perfect stock suspesion

All in all, I love my S40 and I am certain I made the right choice. I think the price is fair although I probably would have skipped some of the options if I were to do it again.

I am going to tune it a bit. I don't intend to go hogwild, but will likely do rims to start, and get some tires to fill out the line between the fender lip and ground (the 195's are a bit tucked in).

I would do the suspension if there were better aftermarket parts out (I'm not a fan of spring swaps anymore, and I don't know yet why there aren't a coilover avaiable for the 1.9T). I intend to keep my S40 for about 2 years, and then pick up an S60R after it is in its second production year.

Feel free to ask me what I think about the Audi 1.8T if you want, and I'm glad to be here

8 Posts
I totally agree with your review. We have an A4 2.8, and the S40 is definitely faster and more responsive throttle-wise than the 6 cylinder on the low end.

The way I see it, Volvos are designed, first and foremost, for people who use a car to go from point A to point B with the greatest ease and comfort. Audis, on the other hand, are designed for people who drive because of the driving experience itself, and don't mind working their cars to get the performance they desire. But then again, I drive the Audi(putting on flame suit)...
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.