2022 Volvo C40 Recharge First Test: So Much Cooler Than a Tesla Model Y
![2022 Volvo C40 Recharge First Test: So Much Cooler Than a Tesla Model Y](https://matocar.com/news/2022-volvo-c40-recharge-first-test-so-much-cooler-than-a-tesla-model-y.webp)
Pros
- Fabulous design and detailing
- Provocatively quick acceleration
- Makes brake pedal almost obsolete
Cons
- Supercar-esque rear visibility
- Software needs polishing
- Mediocre range and charging
Launching to 60 mph in 4.2 seconds, the 2022 Volvo C40 Recharge electric SUV vaulted itself into a tie for the title of quickest Volvo ever. And this fastback crossover EV's acceleration never ceases to amuse. It reacts instantly to pressure on the go pedal, angling its grilleless front end slightly skyward as the motors hum happily along.
But the C40 Recharge isn't the only electric SUV with sports-car-rivaling speed. The Tesla Model Y outperforms it in each of our testing criteria—and in criteria that matter greatly to everyday living. So why would the C40 Recharge be worth consideration in an expanding field of electric luxury SUVs? Simple: Because it's cool.
Volvo's Second Electric SUV (Sort Of)
What is the C40, anyway? Begin with the Volvo XC40, which went on sale in the United States for 2019 and quickly climbed to the top of our subcompact luxury SUV rankings. For 2021, Volvo revealed the XC40 Recharge, a battery-powered version of the XC40 and the first of many all-electric vehicles due from the Swedish brand. Then, following fashionable trends, Volvo reworked its conventional SUV to wear a sleek fastback roofline. The result is the C40 Recharge.
Fundamentally, the C40 Recharge and XC40 Recharge are the same machine. Both are based on Volvo's CMA architecture and feature a battery pack with 75 kWh of usable capacity beneath the floor. In each, a dual-motor AWD powertrain spins out an impressive 402 hp and 487 lb-ft of torque. Although both recharge at a maximum of 150 kW, the C40 ekes out a slight range advantage, scoring 226 miles instead of 223 in EPA certification. The XC40 Recharge has a lower starting price, at $52,795, but equipping it in high-end Ultimate trim (the only trim offered on the C40 for 2022) brings it to within $600 of the C40. Both are currently eligible for $7,500 in federal tax incentives.
Think of it this way: The C40 Recharge is to the XC40 Recharge what the BMW X4 is to the X3 or the Audi E-Tron Sportback is to the E-Tron. However, the XC40 can be had with either gasoline or electric power. The C40 Recharge is exclusively an EV—if you want its good looks, you have to go electric.
Statement- (and Sale-) Making Style
Indeed, design is a primary selling point for the C40, and starting with the XC40 could only mean great things for its vogueish adaptation. The sleek greenhouse contrasts against chunky lower body panels, all hunkered down on aero-emphasizing 20-inch wheels. Its unique headlights and taillights perform an LED animation whenever it's locked or unlocked. Aerodynamic elements at the top and bottom of that raked rear glass add a touch of sportiness.
Aesthetic allure persists inside the C40, which alters the XC40's attractive and functional cabin with a few key enhancements. That's not leather on the steering wheel or suede on the seats; the C40's materials are entirely animal-free, but they look and feel convincingly upscale. Our test car's cosmopolitan blue carpeting perfectly matched its exterior paint. An especially stylish detail is the trim panels, which are formed to resemble the topography of Sweden's Abisko National Park. At night, backlighting shines through them at varied brightnesses, creating an ambiance quite unlike any other car's.
As an artistic exercise, the C40 succeeds, standing out with its sculptural stance and delightful flourishes. Even better, it's really fun to drive.
A Very Unassuming Dragster
As stated above, the C40 is rapid. In acceleration testing it's essentially even with XC40 Recharge, hitting 60 mph in 4.2 seconds, 100 mph in 10.6 seconds, and the quarter mile in 12.8 seconds at 109.0 mph. It whooshes from 45 to 65 mph in just 1.9 seconds. These results are shockingly similar to certain V-8-powered muscle cars.
Out and about, the C40's driver has a sensation of imperious power that belies the SUV's style-centric image. Its accelerator pedal is ultraprecise, letting you zip ahead instantly with just a few millimeters of foot movement. Some EVs dampen accelerator response for smoothness, but the C40 seemingly doesn't, giving it an extremely linear, almost raw feel. Don't take this to mean that it's difficult to drive the C40 normally, though. Any challenge to that lies with your self-discipline, not the pedal's programming.
Accelerator is perhaps a misnomer for the right-side pedal, as it so effectively controls deceleration, too. When one-pedal drive mode is engaged, you can subtract speed with exactitude by relaxing your ankle. Doing so activates the motors' regenerative braking effect, converting kinetic energy into deceleration while sending charge back to the battery. With how intuitive it becomes, and that it can bring the C40 to a complete stop, pushing the brake pedal becomes a rarity. If you do, you'll find it firm and strong. Even so, we recorded a 125-foot stop from 60 mph, longer than the 118-foot distance posted by the XC40 Recharge.
Given that both Volvos roll on identical EV-spec Pirelli tires, high track temperatures that test day were a likely culprit in those and other performance discrepancies.The C40 averaged 0.78 g on the skidpad, while the XC40 Recharge held on to 0.84 g. Both went around the figure eight in 26.3 seconds, at 0.72 and 0.70 g average, respectively. On the road, the C40's handling is dialed more toward simplicity than involvement; its steering is light and a bit dull. Despite suspension tuning on the firmer side, it's generally comfortable and retains a solid, planted feel, aided by its low, heavy battery pack.
Here's the thing, though: The Tesla Model Y—in many ways, still the EV SUV benchmark—outperforms the C40 across the board. However it's configured, it's quicker to 60, stops shorter, and holds the road better. Comparing their battery capabilities further dims the value of the Volvo.
Looks Only Go So Far
Even if you have the ability to charge at home, the C40's 226-mile range rating isn't competitive when you consider the Model Y Long Range can cover more than 100 additional miles. Its 150-kW charge rate is slow, too, now that rivals like the Genesis GV60 can absorb electrons at 235 kW. These factors shouldn't deter you entirely, but carefully consider how you'll use this EV. Last year, Volvo was able to boost the XC40 Recharge's range from 208 miles to 223 using only a software update, so it's possible that eventually even more miles could be coded in.
Hopefully, other over-the-air updates will address the software bugs we experienced on our C40 test car. At different times, a tire pressure warning wouldn't reset, the backup camera wouldn't come on, and only the rear doors would unlock. There's also the matter of its Google-designed infotainment, which has useful functionality and voice-recognition capabilities but doesn't react as quickly as other automakers' systems or your smartphone.
The C40's hardware—that is to say its very shape—creates compromises, too. Maximum cargo capacity is 49.0 cubic feet, down from the XC40 Recharge's 57.5-cubic-foot measurement. Visibility through the raked rear window is more problematic, in that it's terrible. We're surprised that a company as safety-focused as Volvo would sign off on letting its customers drive with such a limited view of what's behind; the C40 is a perfect candidate for a digital rearview mirror. At least the C40's standard blind-spot monitoring works well, as do its other driver assist systems.
Too Cool to Care
Finite differences in specs or our test data aren't what'll sell a person on the C40. The reason to choose this EV over any other—ones that go farther, carry more, or perform better—is because of the experience it delivers. Unlike some of its competitors, C40 is not a prosaic zero-emissions mobility appliance. With its great looks, funky interior, and frisky road manners, there's no getting bored of the C40. This small electric SUV is too cool for that.
Looks good! More details?2022 Volvo C40 Recharge Twin Specifications BASE PRICE $59,845 PRICE AS TESTED $60,540 VEHICLE LAYOUT Front- and rear-motor, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door SUV MOTOR TYPE Permanent-magnet electric POWER (SAE NET) 201 hp (fr), 202 hp (rr); 402 hp (comb) TORQUE (SAE NET) 243 lb-ft (fr), 243 lb-ft (rr); 486 lb-ft (comb) TRANSMISSIONS 1-speed automatic CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 4,742 lb (52/48%) WHEELBASE 106.4 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 174.8 x 73.7 x 62.8 in 0-60 MPH 4.2 sec QUARTER MILE 12.8 sec @ 109.0 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 125 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.78 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 26.3 sec @ 0.72 g (avg) EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 94/80/87 mpg-e EPA RANGE, COMB 226 miles ON SALE Now Show AllYou may also like
Kia Recall DescriptionRecalled Kia Vehicles Kia Recall Contact InformationRecall Reimbursement and Unaffected Cars
Every year, our MotorTrend test crew performs instrumented testing on all manner of cars, trucks, and SUVs—some 220 in all in calendar year 2021. Some are fast—here are the quickest cars we tested this year—others not so much. But even the slowest cars nowadays aren't exactly stuck in the mud. Of all of the vehicles we tested, only one of them was on wrong side of the 10-second barrier to 60 mph, with a small handful taking more than 9 seconds to get there.As we've seen in recent years, the majority of the slower vehicles we test tend to be compact crossover SUVs fitted with small-displacement engines. Inline four-cylinders of varying sizes are the overwhelming powerplant of choice; some are turbocharged, and a hybrid is usually in the mix in here and there. Efficiency is generally what automakers prioritize with these vehicles, so not surprisingly, straight line speed isn't part of the formula. That, and sometimes a vehicle will have a slightly underpowered engine option given its size and weight, further affecting performance. (The Hyundai Elantra was a case in point, with three separate variants making this year's list.)There were a few surprises, and a couple of brands (we're looking at you again, Hyundai) featured multiple pokey offerings this year. In the event of a tie (there were several) we moved to quarter mile and trap-speed times to break them. So which vehicles were the slowest of the slow goers? Read on to see our list of the slowest cars we tested in 2021.
acura nsx Full OverviewProsThe most satisfying modern NSX, Engine pulls hard, Strong lateral grip. ConsIt's dying just as it gets good, Needs a price-appropriate interior, Lacks ultimate steering feel. For decades, General Motors was notorious among its own loyalists for underfunding and underdeveloping a promising new car, expressing shock when initial sales excitement evaporated, reluctantly spending the money it should have in the first place to make the car as good as it should have been from the start, wondering why sales didn't rebound despite the tarnished reputation, then canceling the car once that it was finally good (see: Pontiac Fiero). Acura's parent company, Honda, has collaborated with GM in the past and continues to collaborate with GM today, and this is one tradition it shouldn't adopt. Case in point: the 2022 Acura NSX Type S. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Type S is what the NSX should've been from day one. The reborn NSX held such promise, and Acura engineers benchmarked the right cars. Their insistence in thinking like Honda engineers, though, and worrying about how practical their mid-engine supercar was and how it drove in Ohio winters, compromised its final form. They studied the Ferrari 458 Italia but built a car that didn't drive anywhere near as well or as viscerally.The limited-edition Type S makes great strides toward righting that wrong. It's far more engaging to drive than any NSX before it. Much of the feel and feedback missing from the standard car has finally broken through in the Type S.Test Numbers Trail Regular NSX'sUnfortunately, it seems to have come at the cost of some performance. Despite driving better than any other NSX we've tested, the Type S is also the slowest NSX we've ever tested. At 3.4 seconds to 60 mph, it's 0.4 second behind the quickest we've evaluated, and it doesn't get any better by the quarter-mile mark. To get there, the Type S needs 11.6 seconds, and it's traveling at 120.7 mph by the finish line, 0.4 second and 3.3 mph slower than the quickest one. It's not down to a bad launch, either, because the Type S is 0.2 second slower accelerating from 45 mph to 65 mph than the quickest NSX we've tested. This despite the Type S being the most powerful NSX ever at 600 hp and 492 lb-ft, 27 hp and 16 lb-ft more than any other.It's worth saying, though, that the NSX Type S experience is delightful. The engine revs very quickly and has a broad powerband thanks to the pancake electric motor mounted between the engine and transmission. It pulls hard all the way to redline, and the transmission, in Track mode, won't upshift until you've actually reached the redline, so you get every last pony. It's also happy to not upshift and let the engine wind back down if you lift off the throttle, helpful on a twisty road with short straights between tight corners. And despite all the electrification, the powertrain even manages to sound pretty good for a V-6. The engine noise is surprisingly melodious, and the turbo flutter is icing on the cake.Back to the instrumented testing results, it wasn't any better going the other way. Stopping the Type S from 60 mph required 103 feet, a massive 8 feet longer than the best one we've tested. On a mountain road, that translated to several instances of standing on the brakes and not getting the stopping power a 600-hp car ought to have. Making the experience somehow worse, the squishy, spongy brake pedal response provides no feedback. Better brakes would let this car go down the road considerably faster.There is a bright spot in the Type S' numbers, and it's shining on the handling results. Pulling 1.03 average lateral g on the skidpad ties it with the stickiest NSX, as does its 23.2-second figure-eight lap time, though the 0.89 average g it pulled on in the figure eight was 0.03 g off the leader.And you know what? We're OK with all of that. We're willing to give up a tenth here and two tenths there for a car that drives better. Still, this should've been the starting point six years ago, not the swan song.You do still have to drive it like an NSX, though. To get the most out of this powertrain, you need to treat it the way your high-performance driving instructor told you not to. Brake early, point it at the apex, and then get back on the power as soon as possible. Before the apex if you can. Normally, this delivers guaranteed understeer, but in the NSX, the front motors go to work, the nose bites, and it pulls you through the corner while accelerating hard. You can actually correct understeer by going to the power. Once you figure this out, the car becomes far more impressive than it is when driving it like a typical all-wheel-drive car.Tips For the Next One (Which Isn't Coming)Were this car to get the next generation it deserves, there are a few other components that could be further improved, as well. Body control, for one. The Type S is stiff, which is fine, but it lacks compliance. It's bouncing around way too much on bumpy pavement, making you constantly chase it with the steering or back out of throttle. It's especially bad in big brake zones where the car starts shimmying around in its lane. It's all manageable, but it shouldn't have to be managed. Tie it down, and, again, the car could go down the road noticeably faster.The steering is better than before, but it could be even better still. In this case, it's not so much holding the car back as it isn't making it better. It's very precise, but it lacks feel. Other companies have figured out how to get steering feel out of a car with electric motors powering the front axle, and Acura could, too.Then, of course, there's the interior. It was never up to snuff, and it still isn't because it hasn't changed. It looks like an Acura interior, and Acura doesn't make $200,000 interiors. A next-generation car would need a complete interior redo with much less plastic, a much more expressive design, and for the love of all that's holy, a modern infotainment system with a volume knob. You can't put Civic parts or even TLX parts in a car priced nearly on par with an entry-level Ferrari.Hopefully, Acura will get all those details right when the NSX returns as an EV in the future—as it's promised to, after a hiatus—but this still feels like a missed opportunity for the high-performance hybrid iteration of the car. The Type S proves the current NSX formula wasn't fundamentally flawed—it was just unfinished. It's a shame this car missed the mark so widely that its sales can't support a second generation of this model to finish the job. If the NSX Type S is any indication, it could've been great. Instead, Acura is pulling a GM and canceling it just as it started to get right. Everyone loses.Looks good! More details?2022 Acura NSX Type S Specifications BASE PRICE $171,495 PRICE AS TESTED $185,995 VEHICLE LAYOUT Mid-engine, 2 front and 1 rear motors, AWD, 2-pass, 2-door hatchback ENGINE, MOTOR Twin-turbo port- and direct-injected DOHC 24-valve 60-degree V-6, plus 3 permanent-magnet electric motors POWER (SAE NET) 520 hp @ 6,500 rpm (gas), 72 hp (comb front elec), 47 hp (rear elec); 600 hp (comb) TORQUE (SAE NET) 443 lb-ft @ 2,300 rpm (gas), 108 lb-ft (comb front elec), 109 lb-ft (rear elec); 492 lb-ft (comb) TRANSMISSIONS 1-speed auto (fr), 9-speed twin-clutch auto (rr) CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 3,903 lb (42/58%) WHEELBASE 103.5 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 178.5 x 76.3 x 47.8 in 0-60 MPH 3.4 sec QUARTER MILE 11.6 sec @ 120.7 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 103 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 1.03 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 23.2 sec @ 0.89 g (avg) EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 21/22/21 mpg EPA RANGE, COMB 328 miles ON SALE Now Show All
0 Comments