Safety Remains Biggest Draw For Volvo's Middle-Of-The-Road S60
Written: Sep 07 '04 (Updated Nov 08 '04)
Product Rating:
Pros: Superb front seats, high-quality interior, far more refined than past Volvos.
Cons: Cramped rear seat, uneven turbo power delivery, un-sporting handling and control feel.
The Bottom Line: The S60 is appealing for its safety features and Volvo personality. But unexceptional dynamics and a tight back seat mean there are many more-interesting alternatives for the price.
My Experience
I recently attended a Ride & Drive event hosted by Road and Track magazine. At the event, I got to drive three sport-luxury sedans on autocross-style tracks--three cone courses laid out at Alameda Point naval station. The vehicles were the new Subaru Legacy 2.5 GT, the BMW 325i, and this--the Volvo S60 2.5T. It was a great opportunity to compare vehicles in the same segment in demanding, at-the-limit situations. And, naturally, I had a blast squealing tires all afternoon--it was a car geek's dream. But let's get on with the review...
Performance
I've never been a big fan of Volvo engines. Every Volvo I've driven, up to now, has had a coarse, gravelly engine note, pronounced turbo lag, and a weak top end. Admittedly, most of the Volvos I've driven have been a few years old. But after experiencing the exact same characteristics in a brand-new C70, I decided that Volvo engines just stink, period.
Well, judging by this new S60, it seems Volvo is out to change such opinions. The S60's 2.5T engine is smoother and more refined than any Volvo unit I've experienced. The engine note's ragged edge has been massaged away, leaving only an antiseptic hum. Vibration levels have also been dramatically reduced, so the engine feels as smooth as a Toyota's. Contrary to my expectations, Volvo is doing refinement quite well these days.
Is performance part of the deal, too? Well, it depends on your definition of the word. If your idea of performance is "when my foot goes down, the car goes fast," then you'll be happy with the 2.5T. It's strong, with loads of turbo-sourced midrange grunt for freeway merging. But if you've test-driven rivals like the BMW 325i, you'll probably be less enthused. The S60's engine still exhibits the old turbo lag, so throttle response remains dull and nonlinear. And when revved into the high end, the S60 still feels strained and breathless.
On the autocross track, these traits made the S60 my least favorite car of the three. It was difficult to predict the spool-up of power--on short straightaways, I'd often find that the power wouldn't come on until it was time to brake for the next turn. So, if you're an enthusiast in search of a sport sedan, you probably won't be thrilled with the S60's powertrain. Still, most drivers aren't likely to be bothered much by these drawbacks. Volvo drivers may even find them pleasantly familiar. The S60's engine isn't bad, it's just not well-suited to a sedan with serious sporting intent.
Transmission/Clutch
To my dismay, all the cars at the track event were automatics, so I can't tell you anything about the S60's manual transmission. What I can tell you is that, under these conditions, the S60's automatic isn't the most willing partner. It's not the Volvo's fault, really--it's just that turbochargers and automatics generally don't get along very well. There's a "rubber band" quality to the shifting, where the engine's revs don't seem to rise progressively, and the transmission holds on to gears longer than you'd expect.
In gentler driving, though, there's little to complain about. The S60's automatic shifts smoothly and unobtrusively, and the engine's broad torque curve means it's always in an appropriate gear. The only thing missing here is a manumatic feature. Most cars in this price range offer a "manual" gate, where you can nudge the lever back and forth to select your own gears. The S60 doesn't. You might consider this feature an unnecessary gimmick--I rather like it, personally--but it's worth noting, either way.
Steering/Handling
The S60's handling, like its powertrain, is quite different from that of older Volvos I've driven. But sometimes different means "better," and sometimes it just means "different." The steering, for example, is just different. Older Volvos had heavy, rubbery steering that became laborious in turns. By contrast, the new S60's steering is light and feathery to the touch--too much so, in my opinion. The limp weighting drained my confidence on the autocross course, and the numb, cushioned feel at the wheel rim didn't help. In more realistic driving situations, it wasn't as much of an issue, but the S60's steering always felt duller and less precise than that of a BMW.
The S60's chassis, however, is a significant step forward from previous Volvos. It's still "safety first, handling second," for sure. But at least it's no longer "safety first, er... what's handling?" The S60 showed surprising grip and security on the handling course. Its tires hung on better than I expected, and it didn't understeer until it was pushed past, say, 8/10ths of its abilities. Once this point was reached, the S60 was a relentless plower, but its limits were higher than I expected. In terms of how much speed I could carry through a corner, the S60 was almost up there with the BMW and Subaru.
It must be said, though, that while the S60 could keep up with the other two cars, it didn't seem to enjoy it as much. Its suspension was softer and less disciplined, and that resulted in significantly less composure on the handling course. There was a lot more leaning, bobbing, and floating than in the BMW or Subaru--by comparison, the Volvo felt heavy and deliberate. It's no worse than what you'll find in a typical family sedan, so drivers trading up from a Camry might not see this as a weakness. But compared to other sport-luxury sedans, the Volvo's handling feels disappointingly ordinary.
The last dynamic trait I want to mention is the S60's braking. Volvo is well-known for prioritizing safety, and so I expected the brakes to be excellent. And they were--but again, only in that objective, numbers-making kind of way. When I hit the brakes hard, the S60 stopped quickly. But the brake pedal felt heavy and spongy underfoot, and never inspired confidence. It always felt like the S60 wouldn't stop in time, but then it did. That's better than not stopping in time, I suppose, but it's still not my idea of excellence.
Ride
Depending on your priorities, the S60's ride might make up for its ordinary handling. The soft suspension absorbs bumps and imperfections gently, giving the S60 a greater sense of isolation than the other two cars. The ride never had a "gritty" texture, even over coarse pavement--it was consistently cushioned over all kinds of surfaces. Road and wind noise were minimal, as well, making the S60 the quietest car of the three.
I was also pleased to see that Volvo has made great strides in the area of structural rigidity. Other Volvos I've driven--most of them just a few years old--have felt surprisingly quivery over rough roads. Even the current C70 convertible exhibits this weakness. But the S60 felt just as rock-solid as the BMW and Subaru. This goes a long way towards making the S60 feel like a "premium" car.
Interior
Of course, there were some things about older Volvos that didn't need changing. Interior comfort, for example, has always been top-notch. So I expected that this would be one of the S60's strengths, and for the most part, that was the case. The Volvo was the most cossetting of the three cars at the event, especially in terms of seat comfort--Volvo might not build the best sports sedan in the business, but they sure know how to make a good driver's seat. Up front, the seats are broad, plush, and perfectly shaped. They also manage to be soft to the touch, but firm and supportive over long periods of time.
The driving position is also excellent. There's plenty of room for legs and elbows to stretch out, giving the front cabin a loose-fitting feel. You sit comfortably propped up, with legible gauges and a good wheel-to-pedal relationship. I also liked the unusually cushy armrests. The cowl and windowsills rise fairly high, so the S60 doesn't have the open, airy feel provided by most Japanese cars. But unless you're a driver of shorter stature, this shouldn't be a problem--I think it gives the car a more substantial, "tank-like" feel.
Build quality and interior materials are another high point. The plastics and vinyls on the dashboard feel thick and solid, with lots of soft-touch surfaces that make the car feel expensive. All the controls operate with muted "clicks" and "thunks," and their layout is remarkably logical for a European car. The climate controls aren't in the usual rotary-knob pattern, but they're still simple--you don't have to deal with the mess of same-sized buttons that blight BMWs, Mercedes, and Saabs. Finally, I love the way the S60's interior is styled. It has a clean, modern-Scandanavian look that successfully blends edgy angles with warm textures.
There is one significant drawback to the S60's interior, though, and that's back-seat space. I found the S60's rear seat surprisingly cramped for a medium-size sedan. The cushion felt low, and my knees were almost pressed into the front seatbacks. Toe room was at a minimum, too. So the S60 is best left to buyers who only use the rear seat occasionally--used as an upscale family sedan, its rear accommodations won't cut it.
Practicality
We already know the S60 doesn't fare well in this area because of its abbreviated rear-seat space. But the S60 is also below average when it comes to cargo-carrying ability. The trunk area is only 13.9 cubic feet, which isn't good for a midsized sedan--the compact Pontiac Grand Am, for example, can hold 14.6. The S60's trunk is plenty wide, and it extends far forward, but it's not very deep. The load floor seems unusually high, which means bulky items won't fit. A split-folding rear seat is standard, which helps a little. But compared to your average family sedan, the S60's trunk space is decidedly lacking.
Reliability
Hopefully, this is another trait that's changed since a few years ago. My girlfriend's Volvos--a 1991 740, then a 1998 C70, and now a 2000 Cross Country--have been notoriously unreliable while she's owned them. The Cross Country, in particular, went through a bad couple months where its check-engine light was more-or-less permanently on. New Volvos, however, seem to be faring better. The S60 receives an Average reliability rating from Consumer Reports, which means its owners have had relatively few problems. One unavoidable issue with any European car, though, is the high cost of parts and service.
Overall
Although I liked the S60 for its high-quality interior and unique Volvo character, it didn't strike me as a great value in the crowded sport-luxury segment. Its performance is strong but flawed, and its handling is distinctly middle-of-the-road, so the 2.5T is lukewarm in the "sport" half of its mission. And on the "luxury" side of things, the S60's comfortable interior is marred by a cramped rear seat, so it doesn't stand out in that department either. Taken as a whole, the S60 comes off as a noncommittal, unfocused entry in the sport-luxury sedan class. And on the autocross track, it was certainly my least favorite of the three cars on hand.
To me, the S60's two selling points are its personality and its safety. The Volvo brand name carries plenty of prestige, but it doesn't have the pretentious, "look-how-rich-I-am" image of a BMW or Mercedes. It's more individual and down-to-earth. The S60 is also appealing from a safety point of view, with good (but not perfect) crash-test results and lots of reassuring safety features.
But for many buyers--and certainly any sports-sedan enthusiast--there are better values to be found elsewhere. The Infiniti G35, for example, offers stronger performance, better handling, and superior reliability. The new Subaru Legacy 2.5 GT offers the same, plus a similarly non-elitist image. The Acura TSX offers much better value for the money, and for pure driving enjoyment, the BMW 325i is tops. Since the S60 does no one thing better than any of these alternatives, it's difficult not to label it an also-ran. I wouldn't urge people not to consider the S60, because it's not a bad car. But unless you have a particular weakness for Volvos, I'd certainly encourage buyers to look elsewhere first.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2010 Shopping.com, Inc.