I was a bit shell-shocked coming out of my tax exam today, and I figured I needed a couple hour's R&R before I started studying for evidence.  So I went to take a test drive of a car.  Car dealers really kiss your butt when you tell them you're a law student "looking at new cars" (which isn't a lie--I am indeed looking at new cars, just not looking to buy for a year or so).  Anyway, the car I checked out today was the Volvo S40 / V50 (the V50 is just the wagon version of the S40 sedan.  They are otherwise identical).  Volvos are extraordinarily popular in Eugene--they're probably the third most common cars on the road here after Hondas and Subarus (and they easily outnumber all other European cars combined).  The S40 is Volvo's take on the European compact-but-not-economy sport sedan, a genre made popular by the BMW 325i (your neighbor's blue BMW).  The car looked good on paper, with a combination of excellent turbocharged performance (210hp), great fuel mileage (22/31mpg), and nice looks inside and out.  It comes in at $30,000 nicely equipped--more than a Subaru WRX but significantly less than a BMW 325i.  But the proof is in the pudding, so I decided to go check it out in person.

At the dealership, a friendly-and-not-pushy dealer gave me the grand tour.  The first thing that struck me while sitting in a V50 was the seats.  They're incredible.  They're possibly the most comfortable, ergonomic seats I've ever sat in (and this includes office chairs, not just car seats).  They strike the perfect balance between soft and supportive.  But it immediately struck me that the seat was far too low for me, and I also couldn't find the lever to slide it forward.  The dealer showed me a little joystick on the side of the seat.  I pushed the joystick forward and the seat electronically slid slowly forward.  I lifted the joystick up and the seat slowly elevated several inches, until I was at just the right height (are you listening, Mom?).  Adjustable lumbar support was also available for the seat, so I could fit the exact curve of my lower back and cushion my sides as well.  The steering wheel tilted and telescoped to just the right position.  I would give my pinky toe to have seats like this when I'm commuting three hours a day to Salem and back this summer (my left pinkie toe, which has been useless since I broke it last year).

I didn't have time for a lengthy test drive, but we went for a quick spin (we agreed that I would come back after my exams were done for a lengthy test drive, including twisty roads, dirt roads, and freeways).  But I made a few more preliminary observations.  The engine is very civilized.  The turbocharged inline-five cylinder is near-silent at idle.  It revs extremely quickly, though I didn't get a chance to really open it up yet.  The car is deceptively fast--acceleration is quick yet effortless, not noisy and arm-wrenching (both have their appeal, though I prefer the former.  The Subaru WRX is definitely the latter).  I didn't get a chance to bring the Volvo's revs up into the upper range where the turbocharger kicks in.  The Subaru had a noticeable one-second lag between when the turbo activated and when it started driving forward harder.  I've heard that the Volvo turbo "spools up" much quicker, creating a much more linear powerband, but I have yet to see for myself.  The Volvo's transmission is amazing.  My biggest gripe about the Subaru WRX that I test-drove last fall was the transmission, which was halfway as clunky as Dad's truck.  The V50 had a six-speed manual transmission that easily clicked from slot to slot.  The throws are extremely short, the fit is very smooth and tight, and very little effort is required--I could probably shift with just my thumb and index finger.  It's a really nice transmission.  Handling also seemed good--stable and solid yet agile--though I didn't get much of a chance to really try it out.

Aesthetically, the Volvo is really a treat.  Inside, it has a simple-yet-elegant layout.  When I bought my Skagen wristwatch in college (Danish design), I was struck by their emphasis on a combination of nice materials with a very minimalist aesthetic.  The Volvo's interior follows the same theory.  It has a billion gadgets, but the dash is extremely simple when you first look at it.  The materials used are all top-notch, with plenty of leather and aluminum (and the seats are a high-tech cloth vaguely reminiscent of the material used to make bicycle jerseys).  You can't tell it from the photographs I included, but the aluminum center console is actually free-floating.  The entire thing is about a half-inch thick and it comes down off the dashboard like a waterfall, landing in a pool directly in front of the gearshifter.  There's a hollow behind it which can be used to store odds and ends.  Outside, the car is just as polished.  The nose is the same for both cars, and pays homage to larger Volvos while also maintaining the smaller, curvy character of the S40 / V50.  The sedan is gorgeous, with very organic curves that run the length of the car, and particularly nice taillights.  The wagon is very good looking for a wagon, though not quite as attractive as the Audi A4 wagon or the BMW 325i wagon.  It's definitely "cute and funky" as opposed to "drop-dead gorgeous" though.  Without the optional roof rails, the curve of the roof doesn't look quite right.  But with roof rails, the V50 looks pretty good from any angle.

The Achilles' heel of the Volvo is probably the excess technological gadgetry it has.  Every nifty detail--from electronically-adjustable seats, to doors that automatically lock when you start moving, to electronically-controlled dual-zone climate control--is one more thing that could malfunction five years down the line.  Volvos are known for reliable engines, but like BMWs, electrical bugs are not unheard of.  No European manufacturer has yet been able to compete with Japan for complete-package reliability (though drivetrain reliability of BMWs and Volvos is allegedly very good).

On the other hand, the Volvo does offer some practical advantages over the Subaru WRX besides just Swedish sophistication.  While still retaining a "compact car" feel, the Volvo V50 wagon has a longer wagon area than the Subaru WRX wagon (which is really more of a hatchback).  You could easily carry a golden retriever in the back of the Volvo, but good luck getting anything more than a beagle in the back of the Subaru.  Also, Volvo wins for safety.  The Subaru WRX lacks the Volvo's side-curtain airbags, and the Volvo S40 / V50 has the best crash tests of any compact car I've ever seen (like other Volvos, it has a very, very reinforced frame).  And while both have similar horsepower, the Volvo wins for fuel efficiency (it's front-wheel drive, and the Subaru's all-wheel-drive system drops the car several mpg).

Overall, the Subaru WRX has a character like a Kalashnikov AK-47 rifle.  It's rough around the edges, but it has a deserved reputation for unbreakable reliability and good performance.  The Subaru soaks up dirt roads as easily as paved--it's a sport-sedan (and sportwagon) really aimed at rural and mountain people.  If the Subaru is an AK-47, the Volvo is an F-16 jet fighter.  Every detail is carefully crafted, and the entire package feels incredibly advanced.  But you can leave an AK-47 outside through a Russian winter and it will still fire in the spring.  The F-16 needs more tender loving care to stay in top form.

Anyway, I have a full two weeks between my last exam and the start of my summer job.  I'll probably return to the dealership to get a more complete test drive.  I may also swing by other dealerships to test-drive a car or two, though I haven't yet decided what other cars I want to drive.

I'm bummed to say that there isn't an Audi dealer anywhere near my town, so I can't test-drive an A4 Avant for comparison.

i was gonna say compare the V50 to the A4, the WRX is not exactly in the same class

And they do have some similarities--they're both turbocharged compact wagons with $25k-30k price tags.

I agree there.

Also concerning the fuel efficiency, I think the AWD V50 fares a bit better than the WRX but don't quote me on that.

one thing i didn't like about the S40/V50 were the tiny inside door handles.  if you have big hands or gloves on they're very hard to use.  not a big problem tho.  i was amazed at all the electronic doo-dads and how you can customize them from that center console.  but like you said, more things that can break, especially since it's european.
but my biggest problem with the V50 is the difference (or lack thereof) with the Mazda3.  They share a lot of components, drive VERY similarly, and yet the V50 will cost you something like $10k more out the door.  To me, both cars are very good looking with nice interiors, the same size, nearly the same driving experience, and so the extra $10k really only gets you extra gadgets, a more stylish interior, and more sophistication, oh and maybe more safety (i'm not quite sure, the 3 can be had with 6 airbags, EBD, ABS, TC and both cars have the same safety cell if i'm not mistaken).  to me it's not worth it.  the volvo has more power, but i felt that the volvo feels slower.  might be due to it being quieter and more isolated, or maybe it's just heavier and the turbo is just compensating the weight.  i only drove the auto in the V50 tho.  in the 3 i drove both the 5-speed and the auto.  i realize many people buy cars based on the reputation of the brand, so i guess that's what you pay extra for.  in this case, i wouldn't.  but that's me.
so maybe check out the Mazda3.  i would say it might seem a little too youth-oriented, but if your parents are considering a WRX as well, it seems that might not be a problem.

One of the most crucial principles of vehicle safety is to have a body designed to absorb and redirect energy away from the passenger cabin during an impact. The MAZDA3 was developed to do just that, with the body being subject to being hit against flat walls, angled walls, offset walls and poles during design and engineering phases to create a body structure that provides ample stiffness for excellent handling performance yet effectively dissipates energy away from the passenger cabin during a collision.

well, it's a good car. have you considered the Legacy GT?

i didn't measure the cars or anything, but the cargo areas looked about the same size to me. i know the V50 has a squared off back, while the Mazda3 is sloped, so there's that difference. the specs show an additional 15 cu. ft. for the Volvo, but it's only 1 in. longer (exterior). that might be what threw me off.