Looking to buy a Volvo diesel as a medium distance commuter

[mannyo]

I am looking at buying a cheap Volvo to use as a commuter vehicle with the odd run to the rubbish dump. The car will be in addition to my other car, an Audi A8 3.7 V8 which due to low 20s MPG is not really up to 50 miles a day at my new work location.

Looking for something around 2002, budget is max £1K, I've seen a few V40s and S60s cropping up below 1K. The V40 being the 1.9 diesel engine, and S60 is the 2.4 diesel engine. Prefer it to be manual rather than auto, if only to improve the economy.

Any pitfalls in the 1.9 or 2.4 diesel engines to be aware of, or general faults in the V40/S60 of the 2002 to 2004 era?

[anonymous-user]

THe Mitsubish Carisma based V40 of that era is not great and the engine is a bought in unit from Renault. It's pretty grotty in the way old school 4 banger diesels always are.

The D5 in the S60 is great though, that extra cylinder makes a big difference. If you get a car with the 163bhp engine there isn't much to go wrong, the later 185bhp versions add a DMF and sometimes have issues with the swirl flaps but are still very reliable. They both remap very nicely.

TBH I don't really consider the Mk1 V40/S40 a real Volvo, and I can't see the point in getting one if your budget will stretch to an S60 D5. There are owners who like them though, particularly the T4!

Edited by dme123 on Wednesday 2nd March 21:36

[loskie]

the old shape v40 is fairly unburstable. T5 a nice choice but may defeat your purpose.

[George111]

mannyo said:

.... S60 is the 2.4 diesel engine. Prefer it to be manual rather than auto, if only to improve the economy.

The auto gearboxes of that era weren't the most reliable things so manual might be a good move although never had one myself. Engines are bullitproof, a genuine gem amongst a lot of rubbish. Use good oil and change it frequently and it'll go on for years. The S60 is a great car - there's a whole thread about them, have a read.

If you can extend budget to 2006/2007 S80 they are a step up in every respect, smoother, more economical and more comfortable.

[mcgandalf]

dme123 said:

The D5 in the S60 is great though, that extra cylinder makes a big difference. If you get a car with the 163bhp engine there isn't much to go wrong, the later 185bhp versions add a DMF

Presume you mean DPF, not DMF?

[y2blade]

mcgandalf said:

dme123 said:

The D5 in the S60 is great though, that extra cylinder makes a big difference. If you get a car with the 163bhp engine there isn't much to go wrong, the later 185bhp versions add a DMF

Presume you mean DPF, not DMF?

I'd assume so.............

[mcgandalf]

y2blade said:

mcgandalf said:

dme123 said:

The D5 in the S60 is great though, that extra cylinder makes a big difference. If you get a car with the 163bhp engine there isn't much to go wrong, the later 185bhp versions add a DMF

Presume you mean DPF, not DMF?

I'd assume so.............

If, by some miracle, it turns out my manual 2005 S60 doesn't have a DMF to worry about I'd be delighted!

[anonymous-user]

mcgandalf said:

Presume you mean DPF, not DMF?

Yes, I did indeed. They all have a DMF, although they don.t seem to have a reputation for munching them to the same extent as 4 pot diesels do!

[mannyo]

I went to have a look at a local S60 D5 Manual diesel today and decided it really needs to be an S60, but not that particular S60.

This S60 photographs well, but in the flesh it was a mess, and the MOT history check suggests its been neglected a lot. So decided it was way overpriced and despite having less than 100K on the clock it was a right state. The car I drove there in (2000 A6 2.4 V6) with 175K miles on the clock has better paint.

Lacquer peel on the bonnet, the gearstick gator heavily worn, the cup holder cover damaged etc..

This is the one I looked at, and its one to avoid if anyone else does.
http://www2.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

Edited by mannyo on Saturday 12th March 18:46