I’m looking at two used cars: a 2010 Mazda3 and a 2008 VolvoS40. Same price, similar miles, nothing obviously wrong with either based on a test drive and inspection. Any reason to favor one over the other? The Volvo Is the 5 cylinder.
Mazda3 or Volvo S40?
- Thread starter Elkins45
- Start date
Mazda3.
Did you look underneath? Mazda isn't known for its resistance to rust. I think Volvo has the lead there. I5 with a turbo? or NA? Either way, might be cool for just that reason.
Volvo will need different scan tools and IIRC has PCV issues to be watched for. Pretty sure it's a timing belt, but both might be? Want to say Volvo recommends premium gas? but may have a more upscale feel?
I recall looking recently, finally writing off getting a Volvo, but want to say, they may have had some transmission issues in this age? valve body issues? maybe it was prior vintage.
I think it would come down to driving preference and your ability to make the repairs (since they aren't close to being new). Maybe TCO too.
Volvo will need different scan tools and IIRC has PCV issues to be watched for. Pretty sure it's a timing belt, but both might be? Want to say Volvo recommends premium gas? but may have a more upscale feel?
I recall looking recently, finally writing off getting a Volvo, but want to say, they may have had some transmission issues in this age? valve body issues? maybe it was prior vintage.
I think it would come down to driving preference and your ability to make the repairs (since they aren't close to being new). Maybe TCO too.
The Volvo is more durable (rust) but with higher maintenance costs. The 5 cylinder is a reliable engine with a timing belt and known PCV issues. The transmission on this vintage is good.
The S40 was a joint Volvo Mitsubishi venture and I never cared for that chassis.
Purely based on how they drive - the Mazda.
The S40 was a joint Volvo Mitsubishi venture and I never cared for that chassis.
Purely based on how they drive - the Mazda.
I'd think long term upkeep costs would favor the Mazda. What does your insurer say about coverage cost on each? That may push toward one as well. What are they both rated for mpg? What fuel grade required? I'd be just as interested in what I'll spend over the next 5-10 years, if not more so, than what they cost now. Good luck deciding.
ETA Looking both up on Edmunds and choosing the most popular trim for that year the Mazda is 24/33/27MPG on regular and the S40 is 20/28/23MPG on premium (recommended). That would be a fairly large lean toward Mazda, at least for me.
ETA Looking both up on Edmunds and choosing the most popular trim for that year the Mazda is 24/33/27MPG on regular and the S40 is 20/28/23MPG on premium (recommended). That would be a fairly large lean toward Mazda, at least for me.
Last edited:
This.
but I do have to admit some respect for the s40. I mean, I would by an s60 instead every time, but the later 00 s40s really were nice cars. I recently worked on a well worn 300k example, and even though it was shot through and through, the bones of a surprisingly good chassis was still evident. That said, especially if it’s got some miles, the Mazda would probably be easier to live with. Or an s60!
i had a new 1993 volvo 245 until 2006. body integrity remained strong but otherwise, trust me on this, you don’t want an aged volvo as a simple, reliable, daily driver, unless you love to spend your free time and disposable money constantly fixing it.
You know they are the same platform, right?
Not this one, shared platform with Euro Focus and Mazda 3.
Mazda, if it's less rusty
Then, I was mistaken, and I appreciate the update.
I’ve been given an S40 as a loaner from the dealer when one of my cars was in for service, and the newer one is decent car.
I thought the year in discussion was still the older chassis, and I don’t care for that one.
So, let me modify the recommendation and say, “condition”. How well were the two vehicles in question cared for?
The "PCV issues" mentioned are nothing more that replacement of the PCV catch box (which drains oil vapor back into the oil pan) and related hoses. This requires removal of the intake manifold.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:
I looked at a used S40 with a bad head gasket. The pressure would churn the coolant reservoir ferociously and instantly.
I pointed it out to the seller and he replied, "..but it doesn't have to be fixed immediately, does it?"
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:
I looked at a used S40 with a bad head gasket. The pressure would churn the coolant reservoir ferociously and instantly.
I pointed it out to the seller and he replied, "..but it doesn't have to be fixed immediately, does it?"
I have had a 2006 S40 for about five years. I haven't owned a Mazda3.
Here's my take:
Engines:
IMO, the turbo is the way to go on the Volvo. Not much of a hit in fuel economy or reliability, but the turbo 5 is smooth and pulls very hard from 1500 rpm for a car of this size from this era. An overall durable engine, but has a few issues. Mine was almost destroyed when a seized A/C compressor snapped the serpentine belt and chunks of the broken belt got in the timing belt. I'm getting close to 250k miles and it's still running great with minimal problems.
I haven't had any PCV issues with my T5 yet (nearly 250k miles). Doesn't seem like a show-stopper to me. If my PCV has problems, either a new diaphragm (cheap) or a whole flame trap assembly ($200?) should sort it.
I think Mazda 4 cylinders from this time period are some of the best engines ever. I owned a Fusion with the related Duratec 2.5 and those things are great. Not nearly as powerful as the T5 Volvo, but should run forever on basic maintenance (I expect).
Transmission:
I don't know of any issues with either brand's transmission. My S40 is a six-speed manual and I think the shifter+clutch is a bit clumsy feeling. Not really the thing for banging out fast shifts. IMO, a car of this size is a lot more fun with a manual. I imagine the MZR engine would be a real hoot to drive with a stick shift.
Interior:
Volvo interior is very stylish and "grown up". But the foam in the headliner and door panels rots out after 15 years. So the headliner will need replacement and the door panels may be a bit floppy. I imagine the Mazda interior will hold up much better but will look a little more juvenile. A well-optioned S40 should give a lot of nice luxury features. But not all models will have those options.
The base audio in the S40 is very bad; the premium audio is very good. Both are integrated with the climate control and are difficult to upgrade. By 2008, you should at least have an aux input.
Exterior:
Volvo styling is more sensible and refined. 2010 Mazda3 has a goofy "grin". For whatever reason, I don't see many S40s with rust, but lots of rust on Mazda 3s.
Chassis:
Similar, many shared or similar suspension parts. S40 might be a little nose-heavy with the bigger engine. S40 probably has more sound dampening as a "personal luxury" car. Mine has the sportier factory suspension.
Other stuff: I think the S40 is a good choice if you are a DIYer and you like the idea of a quirky 5-cylinder. With the turbo, it is a much faster car than the 3. But it has some problems. Common ones I've experienced are sunroof drains that come unattached and flood the interior, and cheesy plastic clamps on the lines to the heater core that fail and spray the ECM and interior with coolant. Then there's a badly-designed upper radiator hose that should be replaced.
If you are able and willing to deal with its quirks, the S40 doesn't have to be a money pit. But if you will need to take it somewhere for service, I think you'll be happier with the Mazda. However, with used cars, the condition of the individual vehicle is key!
Oh, one more thing -- premium fuel is recommended for the S40, but not required. I use regular (87) in mine.
Here's my take:
Engines:
IMO, the turbo is the way to go on the Volvo. Not much of a hit in fuel economy or reliability, but the turbo 5 is smooth and pulls very hard from 1500 rpm for a car of this size from this era. An overall durable engine, but has a few issues. Mine was almost destroyed when a seized A/C compressor snapped the serpentine belt and chunks of the broken belt got in the timing belt. I'm getting close to 250k miles and it's still running great with minimal problems.
I haven't had any PCV issues with my T5 yet (nearly 250k miles). Doesn't seem like a show-stopper to me. If my PCV has problems, either a new diaphragm (cheap) or a whole flame trap assembly ($200?) should sort it.
I think Mazda 4 cylinders from this time period are some of the best engines ever. I owned a Fusion with the related Duratec 2.5 and those things are great. Not nearly as powerful as the T5 Volvo, but should run forever on basic maintenance (I expect).
Transmission:
I don't know of any issues with either brand's transmission. My S40 is a six-speed manual and I think the shifter+clutch is a bit clumsy feeling. Not really the thing for banging out fast shifts. IMO, a car of this size is a lot more fun with a manual. I imagine the MZR engine would be a real hoot to drive with a stick shift.
Interior:
Volvo interior is very stylish and "grown up". But the foam in the headliner and door panels rots out after 15 years. So the headliner will need replacement and the door panels may be a bit floppy. I imagine the Mazda interior will hold up much better but will look a little more juvenile. A well-optioned S40 should give a lot of nice luxury features. But not all models will have those options.
The base audio in the S40 is very bad; the premium audio is very good. Both are integrated with the climate control and are difficult to upgrade. By 2008, you should at least have an aux input.
Exterior:
Volvo styling is more sensible and refined. 2010 Mazda3 has a goofy "grin". For whatever reason, I don't see many S40s with rust, but lots of rust on Mazda 3s.
Chassis:
Similar, many shared or similar suspension parts. S40 might be a little nose-heavy with the bigger engine. S40 probably has more sound dampening as a "personal luxury" car. Mine has the sportier factory suspension.
Other stuff: I think the S40 is a good choice if you are a DIYer and you like the idea of a quirky 5-cylinder. With the turbo, it is a much faster car than the 3. But it has some problems. Common ones I've experienced are sunroof drains that come unattached and flood the interior, and cheesy plastic clamps on the lines to the heater core that fail and spray the ECM and interior with coolant. Then there's a badly-designed upper radiator hose that should be replaced.
If you are able and willing to deal with its quirks, the S40 doesn't have to be a money pit. But if you will need to take it somewhere for service, I think you'll be happier with the Mazda. However, with used cars, the condition of the individual vehicle is key!
Oh, one more thing -- premium fuel is recommended for the S40, but not required. I use regular (87) in mine.
Last edited:
My son-in-law has a 2010 Mazda 3 sedan with the 2.0 automatic. He is in real estate management and drives all over north GA. Now has 225k miles. Other than a door latch actuator I helped him replace, only routine maintenance . Still runs and drives great.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2021
- Messages
- 746
My wife owned both an S40 and a Mazda3, slightly different years. She loved the Volvo but didn't like the Mazda3 nearly as much. I will say the Volvo felt a lot more "solid."
I stumbled across a 2010 Mazda5 with 89k miles in great condition…but it’s a manual. I’ve been specifically shopping for an automatic to spare my arthritic knee.
I may end up buying it anyway. Sometimes I just can’t resist.
I may end up buying it anyway. Sometimes I just can’t resist.
