Joined
·
150 Posts
posting here to see if i get more responses:
hi, i went to pickup 3 friends who were interested also, and we went to the volvo dealer first. the person who helped us just asked for my license and gave us rear plates to stick on a 2.4i. i have to say, the refinement is excellent and the look and feel is amazing. the seats felt a little cramped, my protege had much wider seats and more leg room. the center console looks intuitive, but i didnt get to test it out as i drove about. first thing i wanted to do was see how it accelerated. well it doesnt. i started out slow incase it was a lot of power, but it was slow no matter what. i tried to floor it and the car hesitated, made a weird vibration and then started to go. could be that volvo is limiting it for safety reasons... the turning was tight as i had to make several u-turns because i was unfamiliar with the roads in the area. with TCS off, i did feel a little more power when accelerating out of a u-turn. i wanted to try out the manu-matic and found that the volvo wouldnt downshift from 3rd-2nd, or 2nd-1st i had to put it back into drive...then again, i have never driven a stick, and i was just trying to test shifting both ways so i dont know if 3rd-2nd or 2nd-1st shifting is a bad thing. i was impressed with the looks of the car and the luxury comforts, but the drivability felt a little to be desired. for $25k i think volvo could've done better.
next was to the mazda dealer. the salesman took me out to the lot and asked me a lot of questions about what i drive now and what i'm looking for. i told him i had a '95 pro and he asked whether it was the 120 hp or 100 hp and i told him neither, it barely breaks 90 hp. and he goes "oooh, ok." he must've thought of the 1st gen. i told him, "yea when i turn on the A/C the thing barely feels like its moving" he reassures me that the 148 hp trim is a peppy performer, but i ask him if i could test the s and he was happy to oblige. we got into a sedan with him in the passenger seat and my 3 friends in the rear. and boy does it zoom. when i slowly press the gas the thing feels like its going to rocket out. he said the s has a lot of low-end torque so accelerating from a stop or off the line is going to be quick. "definitely more than youre used to" he said, how true. more than the new s40 also ^_^
my friends couldnt believe how much more room they had in the back. in the s40, 2 were in the rear, 1 in the passenger seat. with the 3 of them in the back they said they werent as restricted and were more comfortable. auto shifting was smooth like the s40, but the acceleration was much smoother, torque felt much more linear. 30-60 acceleration again, wowed me. i got up to 70 passing a slower car and i didnt even feel it. when i try to go onto the highway in my pro the car shakes like a polaroid when i go past 55. the seats and dash trim werent as refined as the s40 but it did have a leather-wrapped steering wheel, it felt equally as responsive and comfortable in my hands. one of my friends wasnt keen on the 2-color seats, but i can live with that. they also were bothered by the extremely bright electroluminescent gauges, but they are adjustable. it wasnt an issue when i was concentrating on the road. seating was noticably roomier, although not as comfortable as the t-tec seating in the s40. all in all, a much more comfortable ride for my comrades in a much more affordable package.
though the s40 has more standard options and safety features like whiplash protection seats, STCS, side curtain airbags, ABS, "performance" sound system, DRL, etc., i felt like the mazda3 was the winner. its built on the same chassis, and i thought interior space would feel about the same, boy was i wrong. the mazda3 has the same "triple H" construction, but as far as i know volvo touts that their chassis is built w/ 4 grades of steel for safer crumple zones and more rigid protection in a rollover. the safety really appeals to me, especially in this area where everybody thinks they own the road. however, what good is all that luxury if i'm not content with the quality of the ride? the base msrp of the s40 is $24,875 while the base msrp of the mazda3s is $16,405 or $17,305 for the auto. is it hard to learn a stick? hehe, thats $900 to play around with...i'm a fast learner and gas mileage is the same anyway (btw the s40 2.4i and T5 have practically the same mileage too). unfortunately the HID (and i'm a man who likes HID) is not something mazda can upgrade later, it comes as part of a package w/ the Sport & ABS/side airbags packages bringing it up to $19,295! still $5k less than the volvo...
give me some of your thoughts, anybody test drive either one?
-wannabe
hi, i went to pickup 3 friends who were interested also, and we went to the volvo dealer first. the person who helped us just asked for my license and gave us rear plates to stick on a 2.4i. i have to say, the refinement is excellent and the look and feel is amazing. the seats felt a little cramped, my protege had much wider seats and more leg room. the center console looks intuitive, but i didnt get to test it out as i drove about. first thing i wanted to do was see how it accelerated. well it doesnt. i started out slow incase it was a lot of power, but it was slow no matter what. i tried to floor it and the car hesitated, made a weird vibration and then started to go. could be that volvo is limiting it for safety reasons... the turning was tight as i had to make several u-turns because i was unfamiliar with the roads in the area. with TCS off, i did feel a little more power when accelerating out of a u-turn. i wanted to try out the manu-matic and found that the volvo wouldnt downshift from 3rd-2nd, or 2nd-1st i had to put it back into drive...then again, i have never driven a stick, and i was just trying to test shifting both ways so i dont know if 3rd-2nd or 2nd-1st shifting is a bad thing. i was impressed with the looks of the car and the luxury comforts, but the drivability felt a little to be desired. for $25k i think volvo could've done better.
next was to the mazda dealer. the salesman took me out to the lot and asked me a lot of questions about what i drive now and what i'm looking for. i told him i had a '95 pro and he asked whether it was the 120 hp or 100 hp and i told him neither, it barely breaks 90 hp. and he goes "oooh, ok." he must've thought of the 1st gen. i told him, "yea when i turn on the A/C the thing barely feels like its moving" he reassures me that the 148 hp trim is a peppy performer, but i ask him if i could test the s and he was happy to oblige. we got into a sedan with him in the passenger seat and my 3 friends in the rear. and boy does it zoom. when i slowly press the gas the thing feels like its going to rocket out. he said the s has a lot of low-end torque so accelerating from a stop or off the line is going to be quick. "definitely more than youre used to" he said, how true. more than the new s40 also ^_^
my friends couldnt believe how much more room they had in the back. in the s40, 2 were in the rear, 1 in the passenger seat. with the 3 of them in the back they said they werent as restricted and were more comfortable. auto shifting was smooth like the s40, but the acceleration was much smoother, torque felt much more linear. 30-60 acceleration again, wowed me. i got up to 70 passing a slower car and i didnt even feel it. when i try to go onto the highway in my pro the car shakes like a polaroid when i go past 55. the seats and dash trim werent as refined as the s40 but it did have a leather-wrapped steering wheel, it felt equally as responsive and comfortable in my hands. one of my friends wasnt keen on the 2-color seats, but i can live with that. they also were bothered by the extremely bright electroluminescent gauges, but they are adjustable. it wasnt an issue when i was concentrating on the road. seating was noticably roomier, although not as comfortable as the t-tec seating in the s40. all in all, a much more comfortable ride for my comrades in a much more affordable package.
though the s40 has more standard options and safety features like whiplash protection seats, STCS, side curtain airbags, ABS, "performance" sound system, DRL, etc., i felt like the mazda3 was the winner. its built on the same chassis, and i thought interior space would feel about the same, boy was i wrong. the mazda3 has the same "triple H" construction, but as far as i know volvo touts that their chassis is built w/ 4 grades of steel for safer crumple zones and more rigid protection in a rollover. the safety really appeals to me, especially in this area where everybody thinks they own the road. however, what good is all that luxury if i'm not content with the quality of the ride? the base msrp of the s40 is $24,875 while the base msrp of the mazda3s is $16,405 or $17,305 for the auto. is it hard to learn a stick? hehe, thats $900 to play around with...i'm a fast learner and gas mileage is the same anyway (btw the s40 2.4i and T5 have practically the same mileage too). unfortunately the HID (and i'm a man who likes HID) is not something mazda can upgrade later, it comes as part of a package w/ the Sport & ABS/side airbags packages bringing it up to $19,295! still $5k less than the volvo...
give me some of your thoughts, anybody test drive either one?
-wannabe
