Volvo S40 2.0D

[Garett]

I currently drive a Saab 9000 turbo but my wallet is beginning to feel its thirst for the motion lotion, I currently get about 400 miles to a tank which costs £80, and I do around 16k a year.

I'm looking at approx 04-55 plate S40 diesels that are approx £4k, so the first of the newer model, any body have any experiences of them?

The ones I'm looking at have an above average mileage say 100k-150k for example, but with a FSH they should be ok though, but what are the life expectancy of turbos, clutches etc, I have seen that cambelts and DPFs are about 72k intervals.

What are typical prices of service items such as brake pads etc?

What kind of real world mpg can you expect to get?

A D5 would be nice but is unfortunately out of my price range.


Any alternative suggestions welcome, but I'm not really a fan of VAG stuff, what about a Saab 9-3 TiD???

[busta]

My parents have a V50 2.0D (same platform, different shaped box on top) and have been a little disappointed with the economy, returning not much more than mid 40s mpg in mixed driving. They are more than happy with the performance though, which may go some way to explaining the lower than expected economy.

My biggest gripe with it is that it offers very little over the equivalent Focus (I had a new shape focus estate for a short while) with which it shares most of it's architecture, especially so with the less practical S40. If you like the volvoness of it then go for it by all means but if you can get a similar specked focus for less money it definitely makes more economical sense to go for the ford.

[Garett]

Part of the attraction is that I think they are good looking cars for what they are, I had an inkling they were on a Focus underpinnings and I'm sure they are Ford engines too aren't they?

I imagine for the extra I'd be paying I'd have a better specced car than a Focus though.

[busta]

Yes they are the same engines as the Fords. They are actually a PSA (peugeot-citroen) engine developed jointly with Ford so are pretty ubiquitous.


Spec wise yes, you'll almost certainly get a plusher car with the Volvo. The higher spec stereos alone are pretty phenomenal.

[MJK 24]

Garett said:

Part of the attraction is that I think they are good looking cars for what they are, I had an inkling they were on a Focus underpinnings and I'm sure they are Ford engines too aren't they?

I imagine for the extra I'd be paying I'd have a better specced car than a Focus though.

The 1.6 and 2.0 diesels are PSA sourced. However, yes, same as the Focus 1.6 and 2.0 diesels.

The D5 is Volvo's 5 cylinder diesel.

I think cars in your budget will luckily come without a diesel particulate filter as they're too old.

[Garett]

MJK 24 said:

I think cars in your budget will luckily come without a diesel particulate filter as they're too old.

They are 'Euro 4' cars, like this one

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2010...

[MJK 24]

Garett said:

MJK 24 said:

I think cars in your budget will luckily come without a diesel particulate filter as they're too old.

They are 'Euro 4' cars, like this one

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2010...

If they all come with DPF's, I'd just go and buy something else. Seriously. I don't think they put them on the Golf's until 2006 onwards.

What about a Golf 1.9TDI. Wont be as quick but they're pretty reliable and no DPF.

[Garett]

Im still not sure if they come with DPFs at that age, but if its Euro4 I'm guessing so?

Not really a fan of Golfs, but the Saab 9-3 TiDs look ok

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2010...


Having said that, there are also slightly older BMW 320ds for the same money!

Edited by Garett on Tuesday 14th December 23:15

[busta]

To be honest, that Saab stacks up a lot better in my books than the Volvo. A bit more power on tap, similar economy yet slightly larger and you'll get a lower milage/better condition car for your money. It probably won't handle quite as nicely as the S40 but I would hope it would be a bit more refined.

[confused_buyer]

Right marque, wrong car. Go for a S60 D5 SE. Nicer car, more a "proper" Volvo, more comfortable, faster, more economical, more reliable and more around in your budget.

You are correct that the 72k service is the big one - that is when the DPF is meant to get replaced (about a grand) but sometimes doesn't and then packs up down the line.

The 2.0 diesel lump is indeed the same as used by PSA and Ford. It's OK, but actually less econmical in the real world than Volvo's own D5.

[Rockape]

I've been running one of these for the last three months. I have been very impressed. Good performace, good economy. No problems to report. The car is much more upmarket than the focus and a nicer place to sit. Materials and build quality are very good. The only thing is the boot is quite small. Big enough for a buggy and a suitcase. Check to see if the car has a particle filter. If it does it's a big bill at the 72000 mile service. It is all down to the 8th character of the VIN 3= Euro 3 no particle filter or additive, 4 = Euro 4 no particle trap and no additive, 5 = Euro 4 with particle trap and additive .

Mines a 2006 without the filter.

[Garett]

confused_buyer said:

Right marque, wrong car. Go for a S60 D5 SE. Nicer car, more a "proper" Volvo, more comfortable, faster, more economical, more reliable and more around in your budget.

You are correct that the 72k service is the big one - that is when the DPF is meant to get replaced (about a grand) but sometimes doesn't and then packs up down the line.

The 2.0 diesel lump is indeed the same as used by PSA and Ford. It's OK, but actually less econmical in the real world than Volvo's own D5.

Yes, I am being drawn to the S60, there seems more around and it looks a better all rounder, only thing is, is it going to be cheap to run being a 5 pot, insurance, tax and fuel consumption will be higher than an S40.

[confused_buyer]

Garett said:

Yes, I am being drawn to the S60, there seems more around and it looks a better all rounder, only thing is, is it going to be cheap to run being a 5 pot, insurance, tax and fuel consumption will be higher than an S40.

Not necessarily. Fuel consumption wise a S60 D5 is better than 2.0d S40. I know it doesn't sound logical, but in practice it is. The D5 is much less troublesome than the Ford/PSA unit in my experience as well.

Pre-2006 S60's (i.e. the original 163ps D5) do not have a DPF. The later 2.4d and 185ps D5 do.