By Megan Benoit
March 21, 2008 -
The S60 is Volvo's neglected middle child. Baby brother S40 is hipper, faster, and gets all the chicks. Older brother S80 is bigger and more luxurious. Where does that leave the S60? Not languishing on dealership lots, given that it's Volvo's best-selling sedan (if barely). But I'm hard-pressed to figure out why. Apparently, Volvo can't figure out why either– the S60 has purportedly been on the chopping block for a couple of years now, though no one seems willing to make that final cut yet. So let me take a stab at it.
From the outside, the S60's unmistakably a Volvo. It comes with the standard Volvo-esque design cues, with little to differentiate itself from the other sedans save subtle trim differences (the T5 gets a spoiler, this one gets bupkis). These cars are so anonymous they're part of the standard package you get when you enter a witness protection program. Maybe it's a safety feature: people are less likely to accidentally swerve into your car if it doesn't suddenly catch their attention (I'm sure people who drive Lambos and STIs get that all the time).
The interior is imbued with adequate, standard, not-an-inch-more-than-necessary luxury. The leather on our tester was unsightly and about as baby's-bottom buttery as a pleather diner booth. Don't look up; that rat-fur headliner will prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the beancounters had their dirty, dirty way with this car.
The S60's premium package includes wood trim, which is a surprisingly nice fit for the taupe interior. A ginormous center stack dominates the dash, its glove-friendly, intuitive buttons lost in oceans of plastic. It also sports a vertical storage slot that defies understanding– anything you put in there slides out at the first press of the gas.
Also incomprehensible: a flip-out rear seat cupholder in the armrest that renders the rest useless whilst deployed. Maybe I'm a big baby that wants to put my elbow somewhere comfy.
And Junior doesn't need a big gulp anyway, if you can even fit him in the ridiculously undersized rear seats. This is bigger than the S40? No way. The larger proportions seem to mostly go towards trunk space instead of rear seating room; disappointing for anyone shopping for a "family" sedan.
Starting up the S60's engine reminded me a lot of my mother, if only because she grew up driving tractors. I apologize and retract my earlier dismembering of the Ecotec in the G5. Only John Deere himself would enjoy the unholy racket the five-cylinder turbo makes. While the engine makes entirely satisfactory loud rumbling noises during brisk acceleration, it also makes them all the rest of the time, even at idle.
So on one hand, there's nearly no turbo lag, it being mitigated well by high torque at low RPMs. On the other, it's the noisiest turbo I've ever encountered (or I'm just a spoiled enthusiast who likes the turbo magic of a Subaru or Volkswagen). Sure, the S60's mill provides an appreciable amount of propulsion, but Nine Inch Nails concerts are easier on the eardrums. Anything this loud should sport a sub-five-second 0-60 or STFU.
Handling-wise, the S60 is safe, in the "nothing special" sense of the word. The sedan does a great job handling average bumps on average roads in average conditions. The steering is numb, but not in an overly disconcerting way. Even without any road feel, you still feel in control of the car. There's nothing to be excited about, or anything to truly hate. I would wager that the power and handling are perfect for 90 percent of the general driving population. More demanding drivers would pick it to pieces.
And speaking of safe, the S60's technologically advanced safety features rule the roost. Unfortunately, those same features push it to a punishing 3500 lbs. A few hundred pounds less in steel and safety features might just make this ugly duckling into a swan, but something has to set Volvo apart. Too bad the Subaru Legacy GT scores higher on crash tests and is a thousand times more fun (and only marginally cheaper quality-wise). Even Ford touts safety as a selling point. And let's not talk depreciation. The S60 tanks faster than Ikea furniture.
The S60 falls short on the luxury features, too. A new IS250 costs the same as a leathered-up S60 and comes with some truly indulgent options. (Forget grocery bag holders, why doesn't the Volvo have pre-collision avoidance and parking assist?) I don't even know how it competes with the S40 turbo unless you're too wide for the S40's seats.
Maybe the Volvo S60 is a great car and I don't get it, but I can't think of anything that this car does that someone anyone else doesn't do better, including Volvo.
Subscribe to Newsletter
More Reviews54 Responses to “ 2008 Volvo S60 2.5T Review ”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » Show All Reverse Order
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » Show All Reverse Order
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Digg
del.icio.us
Blinklist
Furl
Netscape
Google
NewsVine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Windows Live
POWERED
March 21st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Still a decent car. Volvo makes a decent basis for future Fords.
March 21st, 2008 at 1:27 pm
The tractor engine is a homage to the old Redblocks. Brilliant!
I’d rather take the V70 though. An ‘06, not the new bulbous one.
March 21st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Yeah, a complicated one this S60…
Originally it was designed as the real sedan version of the V70, although the at that point already existing S80 kind of was that already, especially in the US market (IMHO)…
It was meant to compete with 3 series, hence the sporty sloping C-pillar, that was meant to be coupe like, although with all the 4 door coupes brought to market now it doesn’t really show anymore.
But now, the new S40 tries to play that role…and the S60 is outdated, I think it will go in one year.
March 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I have no problems with this review, but I came in with my teeth clenched due to the nasty aftertaste from the Altima coupe review. Give out your stars wisely, or I can’t read these things seriously.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
On paper, the total front and rear legroom in the S40, S60, and S80 is nearly identical. They differ by about an inch. Subjectively, the S60 is roomier than the S40, and the S80 is roomier than the S60, but the differences are not nearly what they ought to be.
This brand is in the process of falling entirely off the public’s radar. Others are catching up on safety, and Volvo has nothing else going for it aside from “anonymous semi-luxury.”
TrueDelta has some reliability info. Newer ones are okay so far, but older ones can be quite troublesome. More info with the May update.
[url=http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php]Vehicle reliability research[/url]
March 21st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I guess Volvo buyers want blah. It’s funny. I’ve checked S60s out on a couple of occasions, and I’ve got a Volvo freak friend who drives an S60R, and it seems like the driving experience in anything other than the R or the T5 is just kind of blah, just as Ms. Benoit says.
On the other hand, the S40 is a great looking car, and I saw my first C30 on the street yesterday and it was positively hot.
On an agreement/semantics/readability note, Megan: The car can’t be both “unmistakably a Volvo” and “so anonymous.”
-Matt
March 21st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Three stars is appropriate, maybe even generous. No rational, sensible consumer (Volvo’s target market, yes?) looking at a 3-series, G35, or the rest has much incentive to buy this numb-handling, busy-riding, ear-splitting S60. Even the Safety First folks will note that its crash test scores are nothing special (4 stars for driver and passenger).
March 21st, 2008 at 2:53 pm
To take a broad swipe at Volvo, I’ve found their market position as the “safety” brand to be inadequate and somewhat false.
A whole gaggle of cars at this price point offer the same protection in addition to superior handling and power that might even help you avoid an accident in the first place.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Absolutely right, Cookie.
The list of cars I would consider before an S60 is long…3 series, G35, TL, Passat, Legacy…and it goes on. It many cases, a buyer probably stands to save some cash buying something else, too.
…Mazda6s, V6 Accord. Heck, how much less is an absolutely decked-out Fusion?
-Matt
March 21st, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I’m not sure you’re getting it, at least entirely.
The Volvo might not be as flash or sporty as the competition, but it’ a pretty solid vehicle for those interested in long-term ownership. Many of the mechanics I’ve talked to rave about the Volvo inline five’s durability and have enthusiastically recommended the S60 as a good long-term buy after the initial lease returns.
I’m a little surprised to see the engine characterized as agricultural-sounding. The old B-series engines certainly did, but the inline-five always struck me as sounding like a rabid sewing machine with a healthy bit of turbo whine. It’s a bit disconcerting if you’re not expecting so much top end noise, but it’s really no big deal when you consider how well the engine is built.
If I’m not mistaken, that 2.5T is just an evolution of the same modular engine Volvo’s been building for the past decade-plus. If that’s the case, I can personally attest to the strength and reliability of the engine and turbo - mine’s still running strong at 300,000 miles.