2007, 2008 Volvo C30, Volvo S40 24i

For once I'll post up a car that's priced as a luxury car and not a mainstream one. These Volvos are part of Ford's effort to bring the Volvo name to the level of mid level luxury.



Introduction: The Volvo S40 is one of the earliest Volvos to change Volvo's numbering structure starting from 1995. The first Volvo S40 used only 4-cylinder engines, it was placed directly between the mainstream brands and the luxury brands. The second generation was introduced in 2004 with several changes better suited to its new role while reducing costs for its parent company Ford. The current Volvo S40 uses Ford's C1 platform commonly used by the European Ford Focus and the Mazda3. To satisfy enthusiasts Volvo also offered a T5 version giving the S40 an all-wheel-drive system and a turbocharged 5-cylinder. The iconic Volvo station wagon meant the S40 had its own version called the V40. Today there are two versions, the C30 and the V50 where the V50 succeeds the V40. The C30 is a 3-door hatchback also sharing the same components and platform of the S40.

The C30 was the very first car I've driven on the job, these were not cars I was expecting to see but ended up doing so and I'm happy to have driven something a bit different. I've never been to curious about Volvo but the image of the heavy Swedish brick was still in my mind what a Volvo was which likely caused that.


Performance: The Volvo C30 and S40s I've driven used the same 2.4L straight-5 engines. These 5-cylinder engines produce 168 hp and 170 lb.ft of torque which doesn't seem like a lot. The good news is the Volvos are not big cars so their acceleration numbers do not reflect what seems to be mediocre numbers. The C30 manages to accelerate from 0-100 km/h in 7.6 seconds while the S40 7.7 seconds. These are good numbers, despite being a 5-cylinder engine they're smoother than some 4-cylinder engines I've driven with better numbers. On paper, the specs of the engine seem to suggest its average, when driven they're pretty fast and more power than most average drivers need.

My Score: 8/10 - The numbers are a bit deceiving.

Handling: The C30 and the V40 both use the same platform as the Mazda3 and the European Ford Focus. Well as I mentioned in the Ford Focus review...this platform is really fantastic and does wonders to the heavier Volvos. It felt great to put the Mazda3 into corners, while the Volvos don't have the same sort of feeling of excitement you still feel very satisfied and more relaxed while cornering. The comfort the Volvos provide even though the suspension can take on corners does not go unnoticed. I'm now very curious to see if this excellence in cornering is felt in every vehicle using this platform like the mini minivan Mazda5.

My Score: 10/10 - Felt great, handles very well and no disruption to comfort can't do better than that.


Interior: I put the Volvo to a slightly different standard than the other cars I've reviewed. The reason being is, the money you spend on a car like the Volvo is far more than what you have to spend on a regular car of similar size. The C30 and S40 are neither very large and actually smaller than the current "mid size" segment. If you were hoping that spending money meant a interior bigger than the other compact cars the C30 and S40 don't do so. The Volvo interior is of decent quality and has a lot of electronic gimmicks like blind spot detectors. My problem is this is really all there is to the Volvo's interior. Pretty decent and lots of electronic goodies, it just doesn't scream luxury and only shows you paid more with all the buttons on the center console. Both C30 and S40 are made in Belgium and from what I've seen have been assembled pretty well. Not too many cars from Belgium make it to North America, but so far they seem to do the job correctly.

My Score: 6/10 - Not luxurious, not a great deal of interior room but very well equipped and some neat gimmicks

Styling: I've never thought much of the older Volvos, to me they were square bricks. Sure you could see that they looked tough mostly because they were tough but I never liked the way some looked. Ever since Ford took over Volvo, their styling has strayed very far away from the square designs of old Volvo. The S40 is very round and extremely modern, as a result they're quite attractive as modern cars. The C30 does the same but has a unique rear end styling that's quite attracting. They don't display the ruggedness of the old but mostly because the old wouldn't pass today's standards of passenger safety of protecting passengers first. I welcome the change and think its a great step in changing Volvo's image.

My Score: 8/10 - Very good modern styling, something Volvo needed to achieve its goals.

Value for money: This is the big problem with these Volvos, while they sit right in the middle this situation means it makes compromises from both segments. It just couldn't sell as a mainstream car because its too expensive with luxury goods and if it didn't include these it starts to threaten the Ford Focus and Mazda3 sales. On the luxury end, it doesn't go nearly far enough since this is the only expensive compact with front wheel drive and doesn't use the same luxury materials that put it up against the Lexus, Audi, BMW or Mercedes, for a little bit more dough you get more in those cars. The C30 is only a 3-door hatchback, if you want a luxury 3-door then its the only choice but if not then it won't serve your purposes. I just felt it compromised too much to sit in what I think is a bad position.

My Score: 4/10 - Sits in the troublesome middle, not cheap enough for the mainstream and not luxurious enough for the luxury crowd.

Overall: 36/50 - In the end a good car that suffers from being in a category nobody wants to be in.

2009 Mitsubishi Galant ES

I apologize for not updating as frequently as one would expect. Today I'll only add an extra car, the Mitsubishi Galant mostly because today was the final time I would likely drive one since all of them in fleet are scheduled to be sold.


Introduction: The Mitsubishi Galant is the oldest name currently held in the Mitsubishi Motors lineup, originally started in 1969. For the majority of its lifespan the Galant would be a compact car, while the Lancer was a subcompact. Earlier Galants were RWD, eventually becoming FWD and certain VR4 versions had AWD. Today the Galant has taken on the role of a midsized sedan started from the 8th generation, the current Galant is in its 9th generation introduced in 2004.

I was always curious about the Galant since at that point I haven't driven the Lancer as a result I haven't driven a conventional car made by Mitsubishi. When we finally acquired one I was pretty excited to drive it hoping it would something like the Mazda 6.


Performance: The Galant is given the choice of 3 types of engine one 4-cylinder and 2 V6 engines. The 2.4L 4-cylinder is the engine that I've only had the opportunity to experience. This engine produces 162 hp and 162 lb.ft of torque. Acceleration of this engine is apparently 9.2 seconds to go from 0-100 km/h. The engine doesn't make a very pleasant sound and its noticeably loud during the earlier gears. I didn't notice it to be that slow though. Overall I didn't find this engine that significant, although I didn't think it was all that bad.

My Score: 6/10 - Average numbers, a bit noisy early on

Handling: This is usually the problem with mid size sedans, most are set up for comfort which in turns makes these sort of cars boring and unathletic. The Galant attempts to not try to fall into the same problem as other Japanese cars have. The steering wheel is pretty heavy in comparison to its competitors which I do like. It doesn't quite have the feel that is produced by the Mazda 6 despite its lighter wheel. As you go into the corners the Galant I found was quite stable and had far less roll than even some of the good cars in this segment. Overall I thought the Galant does well in this category.

My Score: 9/10 - Nicely weighted wheel, very stable in the corners, missing a bit of feel though


Interior: The Galant is probably the only vehicle I would ever complain about head room. The roof line is much shorter as you move the seat closer to the wheel and as a result I noticed how the styling can affect some of the practicality of the car. The further you sit back the more headroom available. Without height adjustment...this is a slight problem for me. The rest of the interior is pretty uninteresting, unfortunately the center console is full of the aerosol plastic that I dislike greatly. I thought the faux wood trim looked too fake and further cheapened the image. The good news is the build quality is actually good, the Galant is built in Normal, Illinois and is one of the few UAW products that has been assembled with consistent quality.

My Score: 4/10 - Unattractive, very plastic interior but with pretty good build quality

Styling: While not as striking or as bold as the Lancer's design the Galant is actually still pretty unique among the midsized sedans. The car is pretty handsome in the front and a bit different from the rear. The side profile is particularly pretty smooth(which contributed to my head room issues). I kind of wish there was a new VR4 put on this variation since I'd love to see how much more aggressive it looks.

My Score: 9/10 - Very good looking sedan even with some subtle details ended up looking unique.

Value for money: This is a harder one to score with the Galant, the market for the mid size cars is extremely competitive. The Galant starts out at roughly $24,000 which is very high for a vehicle that is often overlooked. In comparison the Camry and Accord are $1000-1500 more expensive, the new 2010 Fusion is about $2000-2500 cheaper. The cheapo interior and a lack of unique features is basically what prevents me from saying its a good value. What can make a Galant a good deal is mostly how much easier it is to negotiate a good deal with the dealers. Next is the very good warranty Mitsubishi Motors Canada has put forward. It may not actually be such a poor value with those useful incentives are factored into that price given.

My Score: 7/10 - Quite expensive for a car with a low rent interior, the good warranty and easier negotiations however may allow you to end up with a less expensive car with those goodies.

Overall: 35/50 - In the end I felt the Galant was a decent car, not a brilliant one but one that has tried in some areas to stand out. Hopefully the next Galant would address the flaws I found in this version.