By on October 6, 2010

Remember the 240? Volvo clearly wishes you didn’t. Instead, they’d rather you think of the thoroughly redesigned 2011 S60 T6 as “naughty” despite a bevy of new safety features. Just a tease—again—or does this Volvo actually put out?

The 2001-2009 S60 added some curves to Volvo’s traditional Amana-inspired design aesthetic, but retained strong shoulders as a link to the past. With the 2011 sedan, the shoulders have been softened and flowing curves predominate. Front-drive packaging and safety standards have conspired to distend the nose, but this is the extent of the exterior’s flaws. Unless looking more than a little like a more tightly proportioned second-gen Olds Aurora also counts as a flaw. Volvo has not copied the recent Benz-BMW practice of adding extraneous details in a bid to dial up the drama. And yet the new S60 is more eye-catching than the German competition. Unfortunately, Oldsmobile is proof that excellent styling isn’t capable of saving a dying brand.

A note on the “ember black metallic” of the tested car. In photos it appears black, but in sunlight brown metallic undertones are evident. Interesting, but overly subtle.

The tastefully stylish theme continues inside the car, where as in other recent Volvos the influence of Scandinavian furniture design is evident. Materials are upscale without seeming opulent. A heavy grain to the leather lends character. In the center stack overly similar buttons ring a phone pad. Breaking these buttons up into logical groupings would make them easier to operate. Thankfully, four large knobs have been provided for the most common functions.

Front seats have long been a Volvo strength, and those in the new S60 continue this fine tradition, providing both excellent comfort and very good lateral support. The driving position is about perfect. The rear seat is a much less happy place. Despite a comfortably-shaped cushion the seat is not comfortable. Likely because of the coupe-like roofline, the cushion is mounted too low to the floor, and knee room is in short supply. The S60 has always seemed a half-size larger than the BMW 3-Series et al., but in the rear seat it certainly isn’t. Trunk space is similarly constrained, tying the 3 at 12 cubes.

When I drove (and reviewed) the XC60 R-Design a few months ago, I was impressed enough to wonder why the late V70 wasn’t as enjoyable to drive. After all, it should be easier to get a wagon, with its lower center of gravity, to handle well. And the straight six—unique in a transverse application—felt and sounded so good I wondered why anyone bothers with a V6. But couldn’t Volvo wring more than 281 horsepower out of a turbocharged 3.0-liter?

Well, for 2011 horsepower has been bumped to a nice, round, BMW-tying 300, at 6,500 rpm. Torque has also been bumped, to 325 pound-feet, all of it at least theoretically available from 2,100 to 4,200 rpm. In practice, the engine feels strong throughout its range, with hardly any turbo lag. Though it weighs nearly two tons, the latest S60 is a quick car. If only ex-parent Ford’s EcoBoost felt nearly this responsive or sounded nearly this good.

Unlike in the 2004-2007 R, no manual transmission is offered. The six-speed manually-shiftable automatic performs passably well, though it’s getting long in tooth. Newer transmissions are both more responsive and smoother.

The brakes feel firm and strong. Automatic-braking at low speeds (“City Safety” in Volvoese) is standard. A $2,100 Technology Package adds adaptive cruise, distance alert (a series of lights displayed on the lower windshield let you know when you’re getting too close, plus an audible alarm if a collision seems likely), automatic high-speed braking, pedestrian detection (on the Volvo site: “unprotected road users”), a driver alertness monitor, and lane departure warning. I did not test the automatic braking or pedestrian detection. Of the bunch, the distance alert is most likely to prove useful on a daily basis.

The standard all-wheel-drive system remains a Haldex design, though as in other recent Volvos it’s pre-charged to very quickly transfer torque to the rear wheels as needed. To this Volvo has added “corner traction control with torque vectoring.” What this means: the brakes are selectively applied to proactively counteract understeer. And it works. Until its high limits are approached the S60 has a very neutral feel for a nose-heavy car. Engage “sport mode,” seriously prod the throttle, and oversteer is even on the menu.

The biggest, most pleasant surprise with the new S60: the steering retains only a hint of the numbness that has long afflicted the marque’s cars, including the late, lamented R. By current luxury car standards it feels direct and almost communicative. The chassis has been similarly tuned with driving enthusiasts in mind. The new S60 still doesn’t feel as delicate or precise as a BMW 3-Series, and isn’t as engaging, but in terms of overall driving enjoyment it actually isn’t far off. The tested car wasn’t fitted with the $750 adaptive shocks. They’re not needed.

The dealer asked my opinion of the ride. Apparently Volvo asked them to. They’re concerned that it’s overly firm for the typical customer, and assured me that an optional “Touring Package” with a softer suspension is on the way. Personally, I wouldn’t want it. But I’m not the typical Volvo customer. That buyer is likely to find the ride overly firm. Not so much because it is firm as because the tires clomp over every bump and divot. Figure out how to eliminate this noise, and the ride would seem much better. Even with it, the new S60 sounds and feels like a premium sedan.

As it better, given the $47,610 sticker on the tested car. It’s possible to shave $2,100 by doing without the Technology Package, another $2,700 if you can live without the fantastic 650-watt audio system and nav, and so forth down to the $38,550 base price. When both cars are similarly loaded up, BMW 335i xDrive lists for $5,500 more. At invoice the difference is just over four large. Not pocket change, but still a bit close. And the 2007 R? Despite having fewer features (about $1,700 worth based on TrueDelta’s price comparison tool), it listed for $1,800 more when both cars are comparably equipped. Then again, the R died.

Volvo has not resurrected the true “R” appellation for the new S60 T6. Yet I enjoyed driving it more, thanks to a stronger, better-sounding engine, more responsive steering, more balanced handling, and a generally tighter feel. The new, come-hither styling also doesn’t hurt. So, “naughty,” even if successfully participating in Deathrace 2000 is not an option? No home run on the first outing—the new S60’s not that kind of car—but certainly good for a triple. I’d love another date. Now if only they’d offer the V60 here…

Michael Karesh owns and operates TrueDelta, an online source of automotive pricing and reliability data

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

61 Comments on “Review: 2011 Volvo S60 T6...”

  • avatar

    I am surprised that no one has pointed out how similar the S60 looks to the new Buick Regal, especially in side profile.

  • avatar

    I test drove one exactly like this, color and all, last Saturday at the local dealer. I liked it quite a bit, but it didn’t feel drastically different from my ’06 V50, with one exception: it moved! My non-turbo wagon isn’t exactly a hot rod, but the S60 was very responsive. The blind spot alert was kind of nice, but not necessary if the driver is paying attention. It still has the same problem all S60’s have, and that is lousy rear passenger room.  That swoopy roofline comes with a price. I owned a ’99 S70, and it was the same size car, but had much more room in the back, due to the boxy roofline. As for Volvo’s wanting to forget its staid past, I remember and love the 240. If they brought it back, I’d be very interested-just take the old body dies, and add airbags, AWD and a turbo.  240R, anyone?

    • 0 avatar

      +1 for the 240R.  Not that the S60 looks bad, but it would be nice to see more cars brake out of the current “swoopy” mold.  The 240 was certainly the anti-swoop.

    • 0 avatar

      +1 for boxy Volvos, and an end to these swoopy rooflines. I just returned a 2007 S60 lease. The backseat was completely useless. I didn’t even consider the new S60. For now, I’m driving a used S70.

  • avatar

    That is a really stuffed engine bay.

  • avatar

    Well, I for one would have preferred a suitably updated 240-series. At least the rear passengers would have headroom. The 240 era was before Volvo became a homogenized worldcar with nothing to distinguish it from others in its price niche — as another commenter said, it looks pretty close to a Buick Regal. That said, at least they didn’t totally ruin the bodywork with stupid character lines, sweepspears, hideous grills a la Acura, or horribly botched tail light treatments.

    • 0 avatar

      To be fair. the boxy Volvo was a later affectation.  Judging Volvo’s brand identity on the 240 (and ignoring the P1800, for example) would be like judging GM on the Citation or Cavalier and forgetting the ’57 Bel Air…

      …Um, never mind.

    • 0 avatar

      Volvo made the 240 FOREVER, and sold far more of them than they did the earlier cars. It simply is the iconic Volvo. Same reason VW will never entirely escape the Bug. Or Porsche the 911 (not that they’d want to).

    • 0 avatar

      And the 240 was really an evolution of its predecessors (142/144/145, 164, 242/244/245 and 264), with the 140 series dating back to 1967.  The 140/160/240/260 series product was about four times the total Volvo production up to that point — it was no flash in the pan, it really defined what “Volvo” was worldwide.

    • 0 avatar

      In the supermarket parking garage the other day I spied a white, almost like new, 240.  It was utilitarian and boxy in design, but I’d buy one in a heartbeat if they were still made.

  • avatar

    I got a chance to check this car out over the weekend (poked and prodded but didn’t bother driving) and I think they’re going to have trouble.

    For the money, in either base or as tested – it doesn’t feel like your getting much car for the price.  Physically it looks small and narrow and could easily pass for the next Civic based on the rear.  The interior (IMO) has no real style and is taking that Scandinavian thing too far.

    The other problem I see is I can and have been able to get an S80 for $40.0 list and $32.0 out the door all day long – it’s slightly bigger in and out and has a nicer interior.

    I’m having trouble figuring out why take this over a G37x or A4 or TL or 328x for the same or less money.


    • 0 avatar

      The equivalent S80 is the T6. But, now that you mention it, I checked and the S80 T6’s list price is only $1,200 higher than a S60 with Premium Package (to equalize features). This is much closer together than I expected. And simply too close.
      To get similar performance from the Audi and BMW you need the S4 and 335 xDrive, respectively. And, as mentioned in the review, the BMW is about $5k more.
      To run various price and feature comparisons:

  • avatar

    Out-of-warranty Volvos are some of the least responsible models in TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey. It’s too soon to tell whether the current crop will be better, though some have been at least average so far. Looking forward to tracking them all closely as they age.
    To help with the survey, with any car:

    • 0 avatar

      responsible = reliable? Just a note of thanks for the work you do with TrueDelta. It’s nice to have some objective data (as much as can be) about real-world long-term reliability.

  • avatar

    Exactly what I wanted to say.
    Besides, when first wave passes you’ll be able to buy this car for $5000 under invoice. Volvo lost its character. This is the end.

  • avatar

    I hope Volvo survives, even with it’s new Chinese owners, and was glad that Ford got at least a few good platforms to build on for ALL the billions they pumped into Volvo…

    But overall, I’m not impressed by this new S60 at all…especially for the price. It’s styling is less cohesive than (the admittedly aging) last generation and seems caught in a “nowhere” compromise zone…not daring enough to be really striking, not nearly elegant or boxy enough to be recognizable as past generations of Volvos.

    They’ve clearly got a tough road ahead, Ford was probably right to unload them. Now that every manufacturer makes basically safe cars, Volvo has lost one of it’s key brand differentiators…maybe they should “get back to the box”, and explore a new-thought boxy styling theme to recapture some of that old magic. Could it still be ‘hip to be square?’

    Sluggin’ it out with Saab over who makes the sexiest Swedish car isn’t a formula for long-term survival, with the non-stop German onslaught, and Alfa’s attempt at a resurge, and the ever present Lexus/Infinity/Acura, and Caddy’s CTS coupe/sedan/wagon/SRX, not to mention Korea’s reaches into luxury, etc.

  • avatar

    One thing I hugely dislike about this car (and some other modern cars that are FWD at the core, including some quattro Audi) is that the front overhang is way too big. It just messes up the whole side profile IMO. It’s a result of the setup itself as well as (European?) increasing pedestrian safety requirements but sadly it just ruins a bunch of otherwise good looking cars. Also when you’ve ‘seen’ it, you can’t unsee it…
    Other examples (aside from this Volvo) are for instance the European market Citroen C5 and Alfa Romeo Giulietta…

  • avatar

    Shame about the front overhang which completely ruins the side profile IMO. A result of an FWD setup + increasingly strict pedestrian safety laws that has already claimed many otherwise goodlooking cars.

  • avatar
    nathan thurber

    I think the interior is kind of ugly..

  • avatar
    Dr Strangelove

    The V60 seems more compelling than this. It looks better and should fix the rear head room issue.
    Volvo product planning seems to be really messed up. There simply isn’t enough space between the S40 and the S80, and this car is too close to both of them, so removing either the S40 or the S80 still will leave to models too close for comfort. Furthermore, the V60 has less space than the competition – maybe because they didn’t want to stomp on the V70’s toes, but then the V70 is supposed to bow out soon.
    Hopefully the new management has some better ideas than Ford did. However, fixing this mess while immediately meeting ambitious sales seems impossible.

  • avatar
    Steven Lang

    I always thought Ford should have taken the Five Hundred and marketed that as a Volvo 260.
    It would have been exceptionally easy to give that vehicle a front fascia similar to the classic 240. Throw in a class leading Scandinavian styled interior. Tons of room. An excellent safety record… and maybe even a wagon.
    A model like that would have outsold nearly everything that Volvo sells today.
    All Volvo needs to prosper is…
    The Volvo 260  I just mentioned.
    The XC90
    A good diesel engine that is compliant with US regulations. Volvo makes some excellent diesels that never see North America.
    If Volvo threw all their marketing muscle in North America towards these two models, we would see a genuine resurgence.

    • 0 avatar

      Let’s see…a boxy, Ford Five Hundred based wagon…sounds like the Ford Flex!  This car already exists and with a very Volvoesque boxy profile.  Do you think it would really sell all that much better as a Volvo?  It’s an interesting thought.

    • 0 avatar

      Agreed.  Your theoretical Volvo 260 = Ford Flex.  In fact, this summer my wife and I traded her ’04 S80 for one.  It really is the closest thing to a modern-day 240 wagon as you’ll see.

  • avatar

    You mentioned you “wished” the ecoboost by Ford sounded and felt as good….
    When did you drive an ecoboosted car at this weight or in this segment?
    The only ecoboost cars available so far weight far more…or are trucks.
    Are you suggesting an ecoboost in a Fusion would not be this quick?
    The rear seating is what tosses this car out of my want list, as does the 3 seies.
    At least a Fusion has a rear seat with room for your knees.
    I guess in Europe they are all short or drive only around town, but here in the US our country drives are longer.

    • 0 avatar

      Maybe it’s the curb weight, but the SHO et al just don’t seem as immediately responsive. The SHO isn’t that much heavier than this car–just another quarter-ton! The additional 65 horsepower should more than compensate.

    • 0 avatar

      The SHO is fast, but HUGE. I mean, big biggie mcbiggerson kinda big. But when you’re inside it’s a coffin. I felt like a tiny child inside; it was a bit exciting to hit the loud pedal but everything else felt isolated and disconnected, like I was in an imax car simulator with vision of a huge car far away around me but no real engagement.

      My 9-5 isn’t an M3 road hugger and it’s pretty big, but it felt like a go kart when I’d been driving the SHO. The Taurus is objectively much faster, but it felt like an airplane: you know you’re moving pretty fast, but you’d just as soon sleep as try to peer out the window and wrench yourself into feeling the speed.

    • 0 avatar


      I agree.
      I was just curious why mention of the ecoboost when it has never been put, yet, into a smaller car so as to compare with this one.

      The SHO as discussed so many times on TTAC SHOULD have been the Fusion AWD.
      The MKS  is great as it is, a BIG cozy car with lots of power.
      It’s sort of the big V8 feeling in the old big cars but with today’s modern tech.

      The SHO, however, was supposed to be a fun car…not just a cheaper version of the MKS.

      This S60?
      I dunno.
      Why buy it?
      It has no back seat. It is awfully expensive.
      It just seems like you can get so much more for the money elsewhere.

  • avatar

    “The standard all-wheel-drive system remains a Haldex design, though as in other recent Volvos it’s pre-charged to very quickly transfer torque to the rear wheels as needed.”

    Michael, when did this begin and sounds nice.
    How does this differ from the Haldex in Ford MKS and others?

  • avatar
    Amendment X

    Don’t understand the “naughty” marketing. Volvo is basically a modern Buick. The first rule of advertising is know your audience.

  • avatar

    Volvo should have stayed with the boxy look, their lineup just looks like another amorphous jelly bean.
    Even downmarket cars have better lines, this design just screams Camry or Accord.  Except you’ll get a lot better quality, reliability, and resale value with those models.
    The 240 was one of the best cars I’ve ever owned, I had nearly 200k miles on it, it was dependable, and easy to work on, and UNIQUE.
    I don’t see either Volvo or Saab surviving over the next 10 years, they’ll just keep getting passed around different investment groups.

    • 0 avatar

      That’s one of the things I love about the new saab: it’s no jelly bean. It’s a bit bizarre, but once you take a second look it starts to make sense, and in person it’s pretty damned aggressive – almost evil.

      If Mr. Spyker can get the interior up to par for ’11 (something he’s already said is on the list) and if biased enthusiast sites like TTAC give it a fair shake, Saab’s got a shot. It’s legitimately unique in its segment and doesn’t have a corporate parent in a country best known for ripoffs and cheap death traps.

      A better interior and another 50 horse (easy with a turbo but strangled until ’12, I think, by GM’s anticompete post-sales rule – gotta hand it to them for screwing a subsidiary even after it’s gone!) there’s still hope…

  • avatar

    I have two problems with your objectivity here.  My 11 year old AMG will still out perform this car, and for some of us, $4000.00 is pocket money.

    • 0 avatar

      Why wouldn’t I be objective? No press car, no press event. Just grabbed a car from a dealer.
      I must admit to one thing: due to disappointments with past Volvos, my expectations were low.
      If $4,000 doesn’t really mean that much to you…

  • avatar

    Looks decent enough, but it’s time Volvo realised that it’s competition should be VW not BMW. That way they might make some money.

  • avatar

    For $53000 I can get into a base Jag XF. When it comes to expensive Fords, I’ll take the Indians over the Chinese.
    Maybe save some money, be gauche and buy a Lincoln.

  • avatar

    More or less comparably equipped, an Audi S4 is about $10,000 more than S60 T6. A BMW 335I is even costlier. Of course it’s apples and oranges. The Volvo has more electronic features than the German cars. Soon the S60 T6 will be offered with the optional R-Design package, which has sport seats with higher side bolsters and a tighter suspension. I too wish the V70 were offered in the USA. Nonetheless, I’m going to drive the S60 T6 and the Audi S4 to choose one of them. By the way, there are some really lovely optional interiors for the S80 T6, which is no sports sedan, but seems like a nice alternative to the Audi A6.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr Strangelove

      The S80 seems more competitive in its intended segment than the S60.

    • 0 avatar

      @SLLTAC, From a “sport” perspective, sadly the S60 comes only with the conventional torque converter slushbox (similar to the 335i’s optional automatic).  335i and S4 both offer the manual gearbox option, and the S4’s automatic is the far superior dual-clutch S-Tronic (nee DSG) setup.
      And the R-Design package won’t fix that, either.

    • 0 avatar

      In all fairness, the 335i is actually not costlier if you are looking at it for a lease. I cross shopped both cars (among 8 others) and these 2 were the last finalists. The S60 was actually about $45 more per month for a 36mo lease, 15k miles than a 335xi loaded to sticker at $56,725. The MUCH better residual and favorable money factor on the BMW made me go that way (and the hard drive for music as well as more robust driving experience).

      Also, the free maintenance is a joke with Volvo since for 36mo its free maintenance for 36k miles only, not all 36 months. With BMW, I still get coverage until 50k miles. That said, for a finance/buy, yes, the S60 may be a better choice overall.

  • avatar

    If only ex-part Ford’s EcoBoost felt nearly this responsive or sounded nearly this good.
    +1. The T6 is a very good, very underrated engine.
    The 3.5L Ecoboost does need a major jump in the excitement department. I’m hoping the F-150 flavor provides that.

  • avatar
    John R

    $47k?? Tssk…I just don’t know.
    I just went to the Infiniti website and I can get the G37 with the sport package and the premium package for hair over $40k. I can’t help but feel that the Nissan would run rings around this while still be relatively trouble free after the warranty has expired.
    Seems like what really killed off the Swedes the first go around (Acura, Infiniti, Lexus) is going to get another shot.

  • avatar
    Jordan Tenenbaum

    No thanks, I will keep my 240.

  • avatar

    This car just seems to make a lot less sense than when Volvo introduced the last one back in ’01. At that time, all Infiniti could offer was a rebadged Maxima GLE. The Acura TL had a horrible interior and looked like an old Hyundai, and the IS300 was a grown up WRX or EVO, not a real entry luxury car. Additionally, the C-Class was a piece of crap.
    Amazingly, the only decent entry luxury car back in ’01 was the 3 series. The B6 A4 that arrived in ’02 was also a great car, if underpowered. Audi quality in those days was also shall we say not good. The S60 was a very credible alternative.
    Now, there’s 10X as much competition. Volvo is trying to sell sport, but Infiniti says hey, we’ve got more power, more gears, RWD, more space, oh yeah, and it costs less. Acura and Lexus are now serious, if flawed, competitors, the C-Class isn’t a piece of crap anymore, the A4 is way better than the B6 and B7, and the 3 series is there as always. Then there’s all manner of other cars without luxury badges that Volvo also has to fight, because let’s face it, Volvo really isn’t a luxury badge. Turbo Legacy’s, Maximas, Buicks, etc. etc.
    I don’t see how Volvo survives this fight.

    • 0 avatar

      I agree and especially in the US market.  Volvo no longer holds the cards it used to hold: safety and being Swedish.  Most all modern cars now get top safety ratings.  Volvos were also once cool for being an egghead kind of quirky lefty Scandinavian alternative.
      With the price up close to the Germans, why a Volvo?  I do like this new S60, but in the end it’s nothing really that special; it’s just another Buick.  And it’s no longer a quirky Swedish Buick nor safer than the other choices.  For me, a big part of Volvo was that it was Swedish.  (And yeah, I know that it later became American.  But Ford just somehow sits better with me than something called Geeley.)
      But will Volvo survive the fight?  Yes.  And it will survive quite nicely in Asia.  Geeley has already made plans to open a huge mainland China plant and build and sell domestic Volvos.

  • avatar

    What is the base engine in US? In Europe its 2.0T petrol. It would be interesting to know if the car feels lot different from the T6 with this engine and base eqipment. I really never understood the T versions of Volvo (exept maybe 850, since back then it was really the only roomy fast family wagon available in its price class). If you want flash, pizzazz, handling and a powerful engine in 3-series class car then you basically have 3 options – 335i, S4/S5 and G37. Volvo’s marketing communicates saftety, intelligence, basically only subtle values. T-series cars seem kind of out of place and they don’t create any emotions that are needed to make the decision towards Volvo when shopping in this car class and price range.   

    • 0 avatar

      In fact, the base model in the Netherlands is the T3, with a boosted 1.6 liter I4 and 150HP (DIN), followed by the T4 with the same engine but a HP rating of 180. Then you have the 2.0T, the T5 and the T6, plus a bunch of diesels.

  • avatar
    Kristjan Ambroz

    Used to be a long time Volvo customer (we still have an 850T-5R in the family) and they seem to have truly drastically worsened over time. While the 850 is relatively happy and still a fun conveyance at close to 250k miles, the S80T-6 seems to spend much of its time at the dealer, trying to fix its myriad problems and even if it works, it’s more the automotive version of a sedative than something really enticing. Still (this being the first gen S80) it has some nice features, like the seats, which seem to have progressively been getting worse in every update since (they may still beat some of the competition but are nowhere near as comfortable as the older generation ones), and the (then optional) Connolly leather – the leather interiors of current Volvo’s all seem to be made of cows with a fettish for rubber – it’s several grades lower than I would have liked.
    At the end the comment about competition is spot on – it has gotten much stronger over time and Volvo did not keep up. And I do not know about the US but in many places in Europe the reslae value of Volvos seems horrendous – not quite as bad as a big French car but really only marginally better. Makes them decent value used, though. For that simple reason the German premium brands will continue making much more sense for private buyers (even if everything else were OK). And the current advertising (offering up to €6k+ in discounts) also speaks volumes about the success.

  • avatar

    I don´t know.
    The interior looks dull and the snout is ugly.
    It will sell like hotcakes here in Sweden, but the rest of the world?

  • avatar

    I drove one of these last weekend during the so called “Naughty Tour” in Miami.
    I have to admit,  Volvo has certainly made strides in the “sporty” department. We were encouraged to compare the S60’s driving dynamics against just-off-the-showroom-floor Audi A4 2.0T and a BMW 328i. Of course in these sponsored events the tables are heavily tipped in favor of the Volvo but I was genuinely surprised at the degree in which the S60 spanked the other cars. The Audi had numb steering and lots of turbo lag. The BMW(supposedly the fun ride) was underpowered, produced more understeer than oversteer and never held me in the driver seat. The S60 on the other hand was powerful, offered a nicer steering feel, didn’t have as much turbo lag (was still noticeable but workable) and had great brakes. Gotta give them Swedish boys props.
    Although had they brought out the S4 or 335i, the results would’ve been different.

  • avatar

    Not sure where else to post this.  For about 30 seconds yesterday there was a review for the new Dodge Charger.  What happened?

  • avatar

    I’ll test-drive this at some point, but I’m not anxious to replace my ’04 S60 just yet. No problems at 110K and I like the exterior styling on mine better than on the new model. But damn 300 HP sounds pretty nice and I think the interior (or at least the front of the interior) is an upgrade from my car.
     $47K is just a breathtaking price. No way would I pay that. I’ll wait until leased copies hit the used car market in a few years.

  • avatar

    I went to the “Naughty” product intro at a local dealer, but there were no test drives available, other than a 100′ ride to show off the Pedestrian Smasher feature (see several YouTube videos). The car has more torque and the same bhp as the S60R, but the 13″ Brembo discs are gone. A tradeoff for that is that the turning circle is slightly smaller, even with the lengthened wheelbase. Also, there is better ground clearance than in the R. I think the Haldex torque-distribution system is very similar to the R’s version, which also biases to the outside pair of wheels in a corner. The front seats are very similar to the R’s, and feel very good on the arse. Pricing, loaded as my 2004 R is, is similar, and the list includes several interesting features that were unavailable anywhere 6 years ago. I will consider the new model as a viable replacement, should some bozo pulverize the back end of my current ride — as happened with its predecessor 850 T5 wagon.

  • avatar
    Paul W

    “unprotected road users”
    That’s a literal, word-for-word translation from Swedish. If I remember correctly, Volvo did another translation blunder not too long ago, when they wrote about “the perception of luxury” or something along those lines.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • dwford: I was told when I sold cars that the people who paid the most were the happiest, while the people who...
  • ollicat: You guys are right. This is 125 miles under ideal conditions. Take your motorhome out west and climb from...
  • EBFlex: This is the answer to the question “How can we simultaneously build the worlds most useless vehicle,...
  • Corey Lewis: Agreed.
  • EBFlex: “@Dahlquist: No, it’s more than just sniffles. Maybe you should read about it.” @Nelson...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber