hi jawajoe, no problem...agree ur comment..but no chance to try the 2.3L
Mazda yet..just tested a 147 (Alfa) during weekend, not so responsive but
handling ok..even understeer at U-turn..but still manageable..cheers
Close
can s40 2.4 beat accord 2.4 on highway?
Started by
kenlairk
, Jan 20 2007 11:36 PM, 39 replies to this topic
#12
Posted 02 February 2007 - 03:58 AM
pocik71
-
- Members
-
- 137 posts
Veteran
Ohhhhh Godddddd....I miss my old VOLVO 850R when I saw this....
#13
Posted 06 February 2007 - 07:59 PM
alexklchew
-
- Members
-
- 8,285 posts
White Lightning
Please don't waste our time comparing a Volvo to a Honda. 
***cabuts***
***cabuts***
#14
Posted 07 February 2007 - 10:25 AM
evolve
-
- Members
-
- 16 posts
Member
yup i agree with our friend here.In my view i think both volvo S40 2.4 and
honda accord 2.4 are equal....volvo is good in its safety(no doubt)
wherelse honda is a good for comfort.
honda accord 2.4 are equal....volvo is good in its safety(no doubt)
wherelse honda is a good for comfort.
#15
Posted 15 February 2007 - 06:03 PM
Magna
-
- Members
-
- 803 posts
Road Warrior
Of course we can compare honda with volvo. What logic is that we can't
compare japanese against euro.
The challenges is that both camp or even the US have a distinct features
and taste that differ them just like Euro Accord, JDM or US version.
Only in Malaysia where we have problems of not being able to view the
merit of the car due to the price and custom structure that we all
lumping cars into pricing category.
Not sure what is Accord price in UK or US, is that same as Volvo S40?
In Malaysia, the S40 is about 40-50K more. Comparing it against the
Accord 3.0 is close enough on prices but not same cc class....
So taking what kenlairk wanted and as per my reply on other thread? On
highway, it all depends on who have the biggest ball.
Though Volvo is known for safety due to its early day innovations but
many maker today have car with higher rating than volvo but its the
history and image that persist.
compare japanese against euro.
The challenges is that both camp or even the US have a distinct features
and taste that differ them just like Euro Accord, JDM or US version.
Only in Malaysia where we have problems of not being able to view the
merit of the car due to the price and custom structure that we all
lumping cars into pricing category.
Not sure what is Accord price in UK or US, is that same as Volvo S40?
In Malaysia, the S40 is about 40-50K more. Comparing it against the
Accord 3.0 is close enough on prices but not same cc class....
So taking what kenlairk wanted and as per my reply on other thread? On
highway, it all depends on who have the biggest ball.
Though Volvo is known for safety due to its early day innovations but
many maker today have car with higher rating than volvo but its the
history and image that persist.
#16
Posted 19 March 2007 - 02:17 PM
Kwar
-
- Members
-
- 656 posts
Road Warrior
S40 2.4 is faster than S60 2.0T !!!
#17
Posted 19 March 2007 - 07:09 PM
V406198
-
- Members
-
- 2,151 posts
Fast & Furious
r u sure 2.4 are fasted on the road ?..170bhp vs 180bhp.....maybe on
power to weight ratio is true la.
power to weight ratio is true la.
#18
Posted 20 March 2007 - 01:33 AM
kenlairk
-
- Members
-
- 326 posts
Taxi Driver
tested both..still feel like turbo 2.0 better eventhough heavier..
#19
Posted 20 March 2007 - 11:01 AM
phat7
-
- Members
-
- 372 posts
Taxi Driver
tested both the s40 2.4 and s60 2.0T and theres hardly any comparision.
The s40 was much quicker off the mark and had a nice linear power band
upto redline. I suppose by staying NA thats the advantage. The s60 2.0T
is very nice but the power was a let down. On paper the s40 is faster
than the s60 2.0T. I booked the s40 for the wife after realising the s40
had larger rear legroom compared to the s60.
The s40 was much quicker off the mark and had a nice linear power band
upto redline. I suppose by staying NA thats the advantage. The s60 2.0T
is very nice but the power was a let down. On paper the s40 is faster
than the s60 2.0T. I booked the s40 for the wife after realising the s40
had larger rear legroom compared to the s60.
#20
Posted 20 March 2007 - 12:04 PM
V406198
-
- Members
-
- 2,151 posts
Fast & Furious
phat7
wonder when you tested the S60 2.0t....do you drive with turbo kick in
with all gears change ? i had tested S40 as well.. as what you said
...have very nice linear & stable power band to redline..but still feel it
cant compare to the force of turbo kick...if you had drive the turbo
model before then you will understand what i mean...BTW do agreed
with you on the S40 rear legroom is much spaces.
wonder when you tested the S60 2.0t....do you drive with turbo kick in
with all gears change ? i had tested S40 as well.. as what you said
...have very nice linear & stable power band to redline..but still feel it
cant compare to the force of turbo kick...if you had drive the turbo
model before then you will understand what i mean...BTW do agreed
with you on the S40 rear legroom is much spaces.
