Last year (2004), my parents traded-in their 2002 Nissan Altima 2.5S for a Platinum Green S60 2.5T. We had the same beefs with the Altima as many owners have had with it – the extremely poor interior fit and finish, at least 4 recalls, and just an overall unrefined nature to the car. My Dad also claimed the Altima was using oil, although that claim was never satisfactorily substantiated. In truth, Dad wanted a European car and Mom has always wanted a Volvo. We cross-shopped the usual suspects: BMW’s 3-series, Acura’s TSX, and the Mercedes C-Class. The Volvo offered the most room and features for the money, not to mention it was the end of the year and discounts were the name of the game. To this point (8900 miles), my parents have been very pleased with the car with no major problems becoming apparent yet. However, I have noticed several shortcomings with the car which I will explain here while I also commend some of the better aspects of the S60. So, here we go, a critique of the S60 from the outside in…
A Quick Once-Over…
In general, I find the S60’s exterior extremely attractive. It certainly does not follow the norm for midsize sedans, what with a coupelike profile that gives the car a curvaceous appearance. The car looks hunkered down and muscular, particularly from the rear. In some ways, it seems the Volvo exterior design team has a sense of humor as they hearken back to their original boxy designs with the inset greenhouse and traditional Volvo front grill. The front end is maybe the only exterior element that comes off as bland because of its flatness. The gray matte-finish trim turns me off and it has already started to whiten with age. And don’t ever get an ounce of wax on that trim since it will also whiten it! Exterior quality is pretty good, except for the front and rear bumper covers, which feel flimsy and will shift around at a finger’s touch. The gray rocker panel covers have creaked a few times when leaned against while exiting the car.
Take a Step Inside…
Overall I am disappointed with the S60’s interior. Space efficiency was apparently a low priority with the Volvo design team. One of the advantages of front-wheel-drive is space efficiency since the vehicle’s mechanicals can be shoved to the front of the car, leaving the rest of the car for passengers and cargo. This space efficiency is MIA in the S60. The dash is overly deep, cutting into front seat room. The center tunnel is oversized, again taking up valuable passenger room. Headroom up front is surprisingly good, even with the moonroof. In the rear, well, let’s hope you don’t plan on driving far with rear seat passengers over the age of about 7. Headroom is in short supply because of the curvaceous roof, while legroom is virtually nonexistent. The overall feeling in the rear seat is claustrophobic, although there is a nice armrest, a set of overhead reading lights, and separate air vents in the B pillars. In my opinion, interior quality is simply not up to par in a car of this price. The plastics used in the interior are generally cheap and flimsy, particularly on the center console. You can’t even rest your arm on the center console armrest without the cover creaking now. The A- and B-pillar covers, much of the dash, the center console, and the plastiwood (it’s convincing enough) on the door panels, all shift and creak if pushed upon. Even the turn signal stalk creaks when pulled to turn on the bright lights. A few mysterious creaks and rattles are heard when driving over larger bumps now. At night, the buttons and instruments light up in varying shades of green (the door switches are lime green, while the instruments are a whitish-green). In some ways, the S60’s interior is just barely an achievement over the Altima’s.
At least the trim pieces appear somewhat attractive. The overall design of the interior is acceptable with, like the exterior, a curvaceous appearance. The center stack is angled toward the driver and the door panels are designed well. The standard seats are reasonably comfortable, though they lack lateral support. Taller drivers will also find the seat stops far too far up on the thighs. Lumbar adjustment is present, but makes unnoticeable changes. The seats are full power, but the motors are excessively loud. The “pigskin” leather is not luxurious, but would seem to be durable. The sun visors are covered in a cheap vinyl. So what about the controls? They’re all designed well, particularly the dual climate control system, which is a no-brainer. Instead of a digital interface like what is popular now, the S60’s system uses simple knobs and buttons. In Volvo fashion, 20 presets for the radio are accessible by turning a knob rather than with buttons, which is annoying since you have to scroll through the entire list to reach stations at each end. The 13-speaker stereo sounds decent, but I have heard better sound from simpler 4- or 6-speaker systems. Redundant controls on the steering wheel for the radio are convenient. The trunk space is long and narrow and covered in a cheap carpeting like I’ve found in $15K economy cars. Three medium-size suitcases will fit, but anymore and you’ll need the rooftop cargo carrier. Simply put, sedans from Germany and Japan offer higher quality interiors with far more space efficiency.
Take Her Out For a Spin…
The driving experience for the S60 can be summed up simply: the S60, at least in 2.5T form, is not a driver’s car. It offers a smooth, quiet ride (think Grand Marquis) except over sharp bumps where the ride gets jittery. Road noise is virtually absent, as is wind noise. But be careful, because this car will put you to sleep on long drives, which is the S60’s major downfall as I see it. On curvy roads, the S60 holds its ground to a certain point, but fails to be entertaining. Body roll and understeer are the major themes, but that’s the safe alternative for most sedans today. The major problem with the driving experience is the lack of driver involvement the car provides. The steering is utterly and completely numb – there is no feedback as to what the car is doing underneath you. The suspension is far too soft to provide road feedback to the driver. However, the structure itself seems pretty stiff. The brakes are mushy with too much pedal travel before engagement, although stopping power is abundant and controlled. The electronic throttle is also numb with no action from the powertrain for the first few inches of pedal travel. And so we get to the most important part of any automobile: the engine and transmission. Volvo does the 5-cylinder thing, which Audi used to do and Volkswagen just resurrected for the new Jetta. Fives are a cheap way to get more displacement and power from a 4-cylinder design. So you might wonder why so few manufacturers use 5-cylinders today? It’s because of the inherent problems of 5-cylinders which you can find in the S60: fives never make nice noises because they only moan at every RPM, they cannot rev as high as fours and sixes, and they are unbalanced (in a four you’ve got 2 pistons on one stroke and 2 on the other – in a five, you’ve got 3 on one stroke and 2 on the other). So in the S60 you get a constantly moaning engine that gives up at 6 grand and idles way too rough for a premium European sedan. The turbo helps to smooth out some of that 5-cylinder roughness, but you have to deal with that cursed turbo lag. The turbo doesn’t come on full force until about 3 grand, so it’s easy to catch the S60 flatfooted in stop-and-go traffic. But that turbo helps when you need more power, since the S60 simply takes off as the revs rise until about 5 grand where the five is now just making noise instead of more power. The 2.5T provides only 208 horsepower, but it feels like much more. The automatic transmission shifts smoothly, but can be caught hunting for gears when going up hills. In sum, if you truly enjoy driving, particularly on curvy roads, a BMW 3-series, Acura TSX or TL, or even a Honda Accord would be more enjoyable.
Safety: Volvo’s Essence…
Since the S60 is a Volvo, you can expect the plethora of standard safety features: airbags galore (frontal, side, side curtain), a stiff structure, anti-whiplash seats, etc., etc. However, these safety features have not won the S60 the best ratings in all crash tests. In government testing, the S60 received 4 stars instead of 5 for frontal collisions and 5 full stars for side impacts. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rated the S60 a Good in frontal impacts, but not a Best Pick because of the chance for a broken leg. IIHS rated the S60 Acceptable instead of Good in its side impact test due to the risk of a pelvic injury in a side impact. IIHS gave the S60’s seats a Good for whiplash prevention. The rear bumper received a Poor from IIHS for 5mph rear impacts (meaning high repair bills) – no surprise because of the cheap feeling of the bumper covers. Don’t back into any poles or other cars and you’ll be OK.
A Note On the Cost to Own an S60…
One good feature included with nearly all European automobiles these days is a free scheduled maintenance period. With the S60, basic maintenance (oil, tire rotations, visual checks, etc.) are free for the first 3 years or 36,000 miles of driving (every 7500 miles). Volvo also provides the S60 owner with free roadside assistance for four years from the date of purchase. The S60's bumper-to-bumper warranty covers 4 years or 50,000 miles. One of the largest costs of owning any car is fuel. The S60 requires Premium gas (your salesperson may want to tell you that it will run on Regular 87 octane, but I know from experience that the valves will rattle if you run Regular). From our experiences, the S60 achieves right at 20 miles per gallon for in town driving and close to 30 mpg on the highway. With its relatively good-sized fuel tank, the S60 has a long highway range.
The End Result…
The S60 is a decent car, my only problem is that there exist many other cars out there that are the same price or cheaper and offer more standard features, more room, even better safety ratings, better quality, and the same driving experience or a better one. It seems to me that Volvo calls its cost-cutting measures in the S60 part of its “Swedish Personality” and hides behind its safety reputation. An Accord EX-V6 or Camry XLE-V6 would offer more room, more features, better safety ratings, and better quality for less money. The Accord would be more driver-oriented, while the Camry would provide that plush luxury-car ride. A BMW 3-Series would offer the most driver involvement and better quality, but possibly at a higher price. An Acura TSX or TL or Audi A4 would offer better performance and a higher level of fit and finish at a possibly lower price. In the end, the S60 strikes me as a reasonably good car, but one that offers little that is new or different. If you want a family sedan, save the money and go for an Accord or Camry. If you want a European sports sedan, visit the BMW, Audi, or even the Acura dealerships.
Recommended:
No
Amount Paid (US$): 27500
Condition: New Model Year: 2004 Model and Options: 2.5T Automatic
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: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.