Volvo C70 Hardtop Convertible In Vanilla Pearlescent on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Volvo C40 Luggage Test: How much cargo space?

The Volvo C40 is the chopped-roof "coupe" version of the Volvo XC40, albeit without the internal combustion powertrain options. It's Recharge or nothing. As an electric vehicle, the C40 (or EC40 as it's apparently being renamed) is quite agreeable, with ample range and performance, plus a refined driving experience indicative of a Volvo that is quite clearly more sophisticated than the Hyundais, Kias and Volkswagens of the world. The interior up front is highly functional, too, with clever storage and good tech. Oh, and the gray wool upholstery is just beautiful.  But good grief, is the rear visibility atrocious. The back window is comparable to a pillbox and the blind spot is enormous. Worse, the various cameras supposedly on board to counter those flaws are just not effective. The rearview camera is mounted so low that its field of view is poor. The rearview camera mirror is susceptible to water droplets and condensation, and worse, the mirror housing is effectively pointed at the ceiling. That ceiling is glass and there is no shade. Ergo, if the sun is behind you, the amount of glare on the mirror renders it unviewable. If the roof is covered in condensation and the sun is behind you, there might as well be a brick mounted to the ceiling.  OK, I've gone off the rails here, but I just had to get that off my chest. The XC40 Recharge (or EX40 as it'll be called in the future), didn't have that problem, and I'm sure this isn't exactly a spoiler, it has a more usable cargo area, too.  Just in case it's not obvious, the C40/EC40 and XC40/EX40 is on the right. I'm done doing that / business, so I'm just going to make this future-proof from here on out. Volvo's specs say the EC40 has 17.3 cubic-feet of cargo space and specifically indicates that includes the underfloor storage area. When seemingly using that same measurement, the EX40 has 20.4. Honestly, I have no idea how that equates to the typically reported cubic-foot volume number of other manufacturers, but as a point of reference to each other, I'm going with those figures.  Both have an underfloor storage area, including a lid that cleverly props itself up so you can divide the cargo area for the purposes of keeping smaller items in place. There's also two little tabs that stick up specifically intended to loop grocery bags onto.  Now, I wrote off this area in the XC40 luggage test since it wasn't big enough to hold the smallest (fancy) bag, shown above in blue.

Volvo buyers have best credit scores among all auto shoppers

Experian, the US credit reporting agency, recently concluded a study into the financing and credit scores of US car buyers. One of the prime findings was that Volvo buyers enjoy the strongest credit scores among new car shoppers from all brands (nota bene, these are Experian's own numbers and can differ from other agencies). Unlike the Forbes report on the same story, though, we don't find that surprising at all, nor do we think it necessarily helps Volvo's upscale brand aspirations. The Gothenburg-based carmaker has sold its wares on tank-like safety for decades, so it seems natural that its buyers would be just as safe with and attentive to their credit scores as they are with their choice of vehicle.
Audi was ranked fourth by consumer credit score, Porsche seventh and Mercedes-Benz ninth, yet the fact that Volvo outranks them in this metric is probably a plus to its bottom line but not necessarily its image. It's not unfair to say more people desire those other luxury brands - Volvo itself has admitted as much - and people in the throes of desire have been known to be a little more let-it-ride about things like credit scores. The differences aren't huge, though: compared to Volvo's 818, Audi shoppers scored at 813, Mercedes shoppers 802. Lexus and Acura intenders took the other two steps on the top-credit-scores podium.
Mitsubishi took the honors at the other end of the charts, Experian finding that its potential customers, with an average of 604, had the lowest scores. Mitsubishi was followed by Suzuki and Dodge. On the other side of the financing table, Toyota led the way in how many of its vehicles were bought with bank assistance, followed closely by Ford, Chevrolet taking third place. Also of note, and for whatever it's worth, not one automaker made both the 'top ten by financing' and 'top ten by credit score' lists, but four made both the financing and 'bottom ten by credit score' lists: Chevrolet, Nissan, Kia and Dodge.

Top torque-to-weight ratios under $100k, $50k and $25k

Horsepower may steal a lot of headlines, but the always-more-complex torque figure is often a critical one for both the workingman and the motoring playboy. The measure of rotational force represents the twist that can liquefy one's tires or haul one's horse trailer. Good stuff.
It follows then, that as with the horsepower-to-weight list that we assembled for you a few months ago, a list of cars that offer the most pound-feet with the fewest pounds to carry, is an interesting one to break down. Sure, there's a big difference in how the torque is applied from a turbocharged six-cylinder in a Swedish luxury sedan and a massive heavy-duty truck's turbo-diesel. But being the car/stat geeks that we are, we think it's kinda neat that those two vehicles rank near each other where torque and weight intersect.
As with the horsepower list, we've given you figures as pounds per every one pound-foot. Again broken down into broad price categories, we've got a mixed bag of 2014 and 2015 models here, too. Every effort has been made to select the most up-to-date prices and specs, and we've also to omitted some '14 cars that won't be re-upped after the ongoing yearly changeover.