2005 Volvo Evolve S40 - CEG Archives

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by Pudmunkie:
Damn check the rear wheels! look at that camber( i think thats right, im no suspension guru) fookin things are tilted in, isnt that an ideal set up for drifting?

That camber is an ideal setup for handling not drifting. Drifting is just a stupid spectator sport.

Yeah, but that's a hella lot of negative camber, even for handling. He's gonna wear the crap out of the inside of those tires like that.

I really like the car overall, but the back looks like it was chopped off abruptly, with the way it slants like this. \

If it came straight down or was more rounded off, I'd be totally sold. However, there's no doubt I'd mind owning one and I'm sure they're damned fast!

[Cartman]SWEEEEEEEEEEEET[/Cartman]

All I have got to say is DAMN

Quote:

That camber is an ideal setup for handling not drifting. Drifting is just a stupid spectator sport.

Sorry Heir Kommandant. forgive me for my stupidity, I nearly stated the observation, that i have seen alot of drift cars with negative camber.

Too bad you think its just a stupid spectator sport, It looks insanley difficult to me!

Originally posted by Pudmunkie:

Quote:

That camber is an ideal setup for handling not drifting. Drifting is just a stupid spectator sport.

Sorry Heir Kommandant. forgive me for my stupidity, I nearly stated the observation, that i have seen alot of drift cars with negative camber.

Too bad you think its just a stupid spectator sport, It looks insanley difficult to me!

I wasn't busting on you pal. I was busting on drifting. Sure it's difficult blah blah, but it's not a real motorsport, it's a show. It's a moving car show. I like car shows, I watch drifting, but I hate that they try to have any competition to it or make into a motorsport.

thats true, I imagine judging is rather difficult, would probably be easier to leave it as a show/venue type thing than a competition

Originally posted by SAV-ZX2:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by Pudmunkie:
Damn check the rear wheels! look at that camber( i think thats right, im no suspension guru) fookin things are tilted in, isnt that an ideal set up for drifting?

That camber is an ideal setup for handling not drifting. Drifting is just a stupid spectator sport.

Yeah, but that's a hella lot of negative camber, even for handling. He's gonna wear the crap out of the inside of those tires like that.

I really like the car overall, but the back looks like it was chopped off abruptly, with the way it slants like this. \

If it came straight down or was more rounded off, I'd be totally sold. However, there's no doubt I'd mind owning one and I'm sure they're damned fast!

SAV-ZX2, the S40's rear looks better in real life than in these pictures. First saw the stock S40 at the Detroit Auto Show in January and was very impressed with it. Last month I drove an S40 2.5L T AWD 6spd and it didn't disappoint me. While the current model is not the rocket I'd like, I'm waiting for them to bring out an "R" version

. If I had money to burn (dream, dream, dream) I'd have Evolve do their magic on a stocker

.

The tail end is a little shorter than ideal. I like my S60's tail end better it and the S80 have a better proportion in that respect. The S40 is a more compact design with almost the same legroom and approx. 200lbs less

.

Regards, Alan

Volvo is da CHIT

now wouldnt u want 0 camber to have the tire flat on the ground? if the tire is riding on the inside edge due to neg camber, arent u losing the grip from the outside edge treading not contacting the ground like the inner edge?

well - on flat dround while going straight ahead you are right.

Carving corners - no

When you corner the inside edge of the tire looses contact - therefore if you set up the car with - camber the tire actually flattens out as you turn - increasing grip.

Another Huge reason it looks like there running tons of negative camber is tire rub. It already looks like the fender is paper thin, any less camber the tire would go right thru the fender.
I guess that what you get when you want to run 300 series tires on a volvo

Yuck.

Drove an S40 2.4T and thought it was nice enough. But all decked out it looks stupid.

MazdaSpeed 6 looks better.

Kerry

I just noticed...was that thing converted to rear drive? It's got a helluva deep dish set of rear wheels to be front/all wheel drive.

Originally posted by kerrychin:
Yuck. Drove an S40 2.4T and thought it was nice enough. But all decked out it looks stupid.
MazdaSpeed 6 looks better. Kerry

Kerry, what you drove would be the old model S40 (2.4T). The new S40 is a significantly different, much improved car, same chassis as the Mazda6 and the European Focus.

I prefer the S40 looks over the Mazda 6 and the Evolve S40 over the MazdaSpeed 6 but hey, it would be a really dull world if everyone like the same thing

Originally posted by SAV-ZX2:
I just noticed...was that thing converted to rear drive? It's got a helluva deep dish set of rear wheels to be front/all wheel drive.

Sav-ZX2, it's AWD. Uses the same Swedish Haldex drive system as other Volvo's, the Audi TT, some VW's, etc.

Regards, Alan

Originally posted by Alan Coles:
Kerry, what you drove would be the old model S40 (2.4T). The new S40 is a significantly different, much improved car, same chassis as the Mazda6 and the European Focus.

Originally posted by SAV-ZX2:
I just noticed...was that thing converted to rear drive? It's got a helluva deep dish set of rear wheels to be front/all wheel drive.

Sav-ZX2, it's AWD. Uses the same Swedish Haldex drive system as other Volvo's, the Audi TT, some VW's, etc.

Regards, Alan

Alan,

Thanks for the corrections. I honestly thought the S40 pictured was rear drive, but I had my doubts. However I must point out that the new Volvo S40 is based on the European 2005 Focus and the Mazda 3 here in North America, NOT the Mazda 6 as you stated. The Mazda 6 is a midsize car while the S40 is not.

-SAV

Originally posted by Alan Coles:

Originally posted by kerrychin:
Yuck. Drove an S40 2.4T and thought it was nice enough. But all decked out it looks stupid.
MazdaSpeed 6 looks better. Kerry

Kerry, what you drove would be the old model S40 (2.4T). The new S40 is a significantly different, much improved car, same chassis as the Mazda6 and the European Focus.

I prefer the S40 looks over the Mazda 6 and the Evolve S40 over the MazdaSpeed 6 but hey, it would be a really dull world if everyone like the same thing .

Originally posted by SAV-ZX2:
I just noticed...was that thing converted to rear drive? It's got a helluva deep dish set of rear wheels to be front/all wheel drive.

Sav-ZX2, it's AWD. Uses the same Swedish Haldex drive system as other Volvo's, the Audi TT, some VW's, etc.

Regards, Alan

What?

No, I drove a 2005 S40 2.4T, it's the new platform shared with the Mazda3 and European Focus.

I think the V50 is pretty hot. Esp for a wagon. Maybe the prettiest wagon out there (apart from an S4 Avant).

Kerry

there is no 2.4t. the 2.4 is nonturbo. the t5 is 2.5. maybe u drove the 168hp nonturbo version. the t5 is 218hp

Originally posted by Horse:
well - on flat dround while going straight ahead you are right.

Carving corners - no

When you corner the inside edge of the tire looses contact - therefore if you set up the car with - camber the tire actually flattens out as you turn - increasing grip.

that makes sense. thanks

hot but something is wrong with its arse..
its like checking out a hot girl and expecting to see an amazing ass when she turns around but POOF
nutin

SAV-ZX2, you're right, my bad

. OK if I chalk it up to my concussion two months ago?

I knew it was the 3 not the Mazda 6, my *old* brain doesn't always stay in gear anymore. Perhaps, I'd better have the syncros checked.

Originally posted by izzodesh:
hot but something is wrong with its arse..
its like checking out a hot girl and expecting to see an amazing ass when she turns around but POOF
nutin

My feeling as well, and your analogy is most appropriate. I suspect it has to do while the camera lens, and possibly the angle, that the photographer was using. There appears to be way too much curve at the extremes which is similar to what you get sometimes if you use a "fish-eye" lens for close-up work and don't get everything just right.

Certainly that rear camber appears to be a real tire eater for anything but the tightest of Auto-X courses.

Regards, Alan

Wow, they managed to make an already attractive car look better. I am definitely sold, I will most likely be buying one of those within the year.

I have to disagree. I think that the rear wells, ride height, and tire/rim combo looks awful. I would pass this one up on that alone, but I also think that overall the ride height is TOO LOW for the car's profile and they just flat overcooked it on wheel size. To me, this is like some new fashion designer trying to get attention by concocting overly flashy/trashy designs that no one in real life (save maybe a half-dozen anorexic runway junkies) would want to wear.

Make the fronts and rears the same 8" width, give it at least a modicum of usable wheel travel and stand the camber up a bit, and I'd dig it. In the meantime, I'd still take the S60R and be happy.

I am loving my Volvo more and more every day. The quality is awesome. The ride is comfy and engaging enough; springs and coil-overs would be a nice feature. But that's not what Volvo is about.

Safety, above all else is Volvo's mantra. Kudos to them for producing cars that are safe and fun to drive.

I never though i'd be raving about a Volvo. I've driven Mercs and Bimmers and I consider all withing spitting distance of each other. PLease don't come and say Volvo has no answer to an M5 or a an AMG E55; they dont. They all have high quality performance sedans and coupes. i'm pretty doped up right now, but my ppint is I like my Volvo, I'd buy another one tomorrow.

i think the rear looks funny also cuz of the two tone paint scheme. i had to do a double take to notice something was different. i think a monochromatic color scheme wouldve worked better