[samulsoon_0503]

I am new to swedespeed, so please forgive me if this has been a subject in the past. I am current S40 owner and we are looking at S60 as our second car (replacing high mileage Honda Accord) for family use (1 child - toddler). There are many reviews on the T5 and 2.4T, but almost nothing on the base model. Would anybody with base model care to comment on their impressions? I am not that interested in high performance, but do not want a dog either. We are impressed with Volvo safety and comfort - we have already driven S40 cross country twice and really like it. Also, any comments on Volvo durability for the long haul would be welcome. I realize that the S60 is quite new, thus there is limited data. Any comments from "road warriors" with high mileage would be welcome. My perspective on durability is of course the Honda. Thanks in advance.

 

[Lisa62]

Hi, and welcome to Swedespeed! I drive a 2002 S60 2.4. You're right, you don't see all that many write-ups on the non-turbos. (I know -- I was in the market 5 months ago, myself!) Overall, I'm thoroughly happy with it, and no, it is not at all a dog! We, too, have one toddler, and so far it has had ample room our day-to-day uses, as well as long driving trips.

If you go to the upper right-hand side of the S60 forum and select "Show topics from past 75 days", you'll find a thread back on 6/26/02 where a few folks made some comments on the base 2.4, me included! (If I knew how to point you there with a link, I would. But I don't. Sooo, I'll just cut-and-paste my comments below.) Here they are...and happy hunting for your new car!

I suppose that since you're looking at manuals, the automatic transmission comments won't help you out, but the horsepower and steering comments certainly still apply!

Here's what I had to say about my base 2.4.:
My 2.4 auto (non-geartronic auto) is fantastic. It's peppy enough for me, and I like the steering -- feels crisp and responsive. It "tracks" well in a straight line and has nice behavior in curves, unlike my last few vehicles where I was constantly having to provide more or less input (constantly 'correcting') over the course of a long, sweeping curve at highway speeds. Low speed maneuvering is superb, as well.
I fiddled around with my tire pressures for a week or two, honed in on one I liked, and I'm thoroughly happy with my ride! On a related note, one attribute that pops out at me over and over again is it's "solid" feel. It feels like it was carved out of a solid hunk of metal. (Corny and cliche'd, but true.) There are no door squeaks or flexing feelings in the body, no rattle-y door seals/hinges, and so forth. Just feels solid.

My daily commute takes me over frost heaves, potholes, and generally nasty Michigan roads, and I'm continually impressed with it's ability to envelop and absorb the "nasties" and isolate me from them...without ever making me feel disconnected and floaty like some plush luxo-boat might (think Town Car, etc., with marshmallow-like ride).

Engine-wise, oh, sure, if I had scads of extra money lying around, I suppose I would have opted for a turbo or a T5, but I don't, so I didn't. BTW, The base engine S60 I drove for a test drive was anemic each time I'd launch after being stopped at a stop light, and it also had a very rough idle, too. I chalked it up to the fact that it *was*, after all, the base engine, and the roughness to the fact that it was an I5. Wrong-o.

Mine's not like that at all...so I guess the test drive S60 just didn't have the latest software or something. Mine's great. Love it. Sure, some day I might want to opt for a few more horsies under the hood, and might want to have a spaceball to "play" with, but those would totally fall under the category of "wants" in my book, rather than "needs".

For the time being, I'm completely happy with my 168bhp 2.4. P.S. The kick-down has provided me with the extra ooomph I needed on the 3 occasions I called on the engine to "puh-leeeze give me a little more...NOW!" I know it's there if I ever need it, and for this reason and all the others above, I'm totally satisfied with my normally aspirated 2.4!

(end of quote from back in June)
Happy motoring, and good luck!

 

[Ascari]

My wife and I have owned an S60 2.4M for over one year and we love it. Overall, its not a barn burner, but a more than adequate car. I agree with Lisa62 on many accounts, however I believe that I can offer some further insight because our vehicle has a manual transmission.

Our car came with no options, therefore we have the base engine, the manual transmission and the 15" tires. This combination offers an excellent ride both on highways and main roads. The suspension is much better than on my S70. I have also driven S60s with lower profile tires and found that a lower profile tire may improve some handling and stability while not sacrificing ride comfort.

Although it is usually the two of us in the car, the engine pulls strongly, especially if you drop a gear. Although it is the same engine as in the S70, it is much livelier in the S60, especially with the manual. While BMW may not be too concerned about the manual in the Volvo unit, it isn't bad, a little notchy, but not sloppy.

What you will find is the 40 may handle a little more sharply and may feel more powerful, however the 60 is a more solid, luxurious and safe car.

The price difference from the 40 to the base 60 is not that much. The S60 represented a great value within the Volvo line and against its competitors. The equivalent Audi, BMW or Benz would have cost me thousands more.

My only recommendation would be to choose some better performance tires.

 

[monkey11]

Hello and glad you found this site.
I have a modified (somewhat highly)2.4 auto.
I bought the car after my wife was t-boned in her Explorer. I did not want a turbo, because my wife would seize it for sure. So I opted for the normally aspirated S60. I love the style and the interior. I did not like the handling or braking very much, those I have since changed (dramatically) for the better. It is still a great car even without the mods. Enjoy your car!!!

 

[samulsoon_0503]

Many thanks to Lisa, "Ascari", and monkey11": I also went back to June postings as suggested. Comments are very usefull in decision process and are actually what I was hoping to receive because I do like the S60, even if back seat is a bit smaller than I would like. The safety aspect of Volvo are at the top of my list.

This raises another question. It looks like results of S60 crash tests are very good, but not excellent. Others in this class (and/or car size) score equally well or better with these tests. It seems as if the many inovations of Volvo do not come into play with these tests, and therefore the ratings may be somewhat pessimistic. Would anybody care to offer an opinion on this?

Great site and forum - I will be a regular here.

 

[Kaizai]

Welcome to the forms.

If you haven't read this post, you might want to.

http://www.swedespeed.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000630.html

 

[GrecianVolvo]

quote:

Originally posted by samulsoon_0503:
It looks like results of S60 crash tests are very good, but not excellent. Others in this class (and/or car size) score equally well or better with these tests. It seems as if the many inovations of Volvo do not come into play with these tests, and therefore the ratings may be somewhat pessimistic. Would anybody care to offer an opinion on this?

Well, I don't know why 2001 models scored at 4 stars but I read that 2002 models were rated at 5 stars. Anywya, I would not be concerned if I were you; you obviously have followed the link posted above and be assured that the S60 chassis is the offspring of the S80 chassis which has rated as high as it goes.

Yannis