S40, but which engine?

S40, but which engine?

Author
Discussion

baptistsan

Original Poster:

1,839 posts

211 months

Saturday 11th April 2009
quotequote all
Am looking for a new run around. Though I was going to go with an X-type, but am also considering the S40. Do town driving, with the fortnightly motorway run thrown in.

So my question to you all is; which would be the best engine to opt for?

TIA.

SJobson

12,973 posts

265 months

Monday 13th April 2009
quotequote all
My wife has a C30 T5, and when it was in for a service I borrowed an S40 2.0D as a courtesy car. I was really surprised quite how pleasant the 2.0D is; great response to the accelerator pedal (better than the T5), nice and economical, lots of low down torque and surprisingly refined (except when idling, unavoidable with diesels in my experience). It was also plenty quick enough.

So, against the habit of a lifetime, I recommend a 4-cylinder diesel. Go for the 2.0D.

mondayo

1,825 posts

264 months

Tuesday 14th April 2009
quotequote all
Well, it depends on how many miles you're going to do per year....the diesel is good, but obviously the fuel is much more expensive these days.

The 2.0D engine, is basically the same, whether you buy the X-type or Volvo, but I'd expect the volvo to be cheaper, with similar levels of kit.

morgrp

4,128 posts

199 months

Thursday 16th April 2009
quotequote all
T5 is the obvious choice but is quite juicy -

D5 are really quick but pricey

2.0d does the job (PSA sourced engine same as the Mondeo)

4Cylinder petrols are a bit limp and the 2.4 although nice sounding is quite thristy for the performance

gamefreaks

1,968 posts

188 months

Sunday 19th April 2009
quotequote all
Which S40 are you refering to?

I don't know anything about the new (Focus based?) S40.

But for the older model, I'd say avoid the 1.6 and 1.8. The 1.6 is too gutless. (These are very heavy cars. They weight about 1750Kg) The 1.8 is better, but it has really tall gearing and seriously lacks grunt.

The 2.0 is good, and the 1.9 turbos (There are two. The 1.9T is low pressure turbo (170ish bhp?), the T4 is high pressure 200ish bhp?) are by all accounts pretty nippy.

Firkin D

1,262 posts

198 months

Tuesday 21st April 2009
quotequote all
morgrp said:
4Cylinder petrols are a bit limp and the 2.4 although nice sounding is quite thristy for the performance
If you're buying new the 2.4 170 is no longer made.

The 2.0D in either manual or the powershift gearbox is becoming very popular.

LongLiveTazio

2,714 posts

198 months

Wednesday 29th April 2009
quotequote all
I was surprised to see the 1.6D getting extremely positive reviews, mind you. I'm pretty much planning on this as my next car following my current 1.4 TDI VW Polo. A decent enough upgrade in power (I've not been driving for 25 years/believe I need 300bhp etc.), good looks, smooth ride and what seems to be a great chassis being Ford platform. I imagine with a chip the 1.6D is fairly good and probably not too far off the 2.0? I'd benefit a lot being a young driver with the lower insurance and etceteras.

As an aside, do S40s come with the heated front windscreen like other Fords? I can't see it listed on the standard equipment anywhere but I'd be puzzled if it didn't have it?

JimexPL

1,445 posts

213 months

Thursday 30th April 2009
quotequote all
LongLiveTazio said:
As an aside, do S40s come with the heated front windscreen like other Fords? I can't see it listed on the standard equipment anywhere but I'd be puzzled if it didn't have it?
No. Volvo don't fit the heated windscreen because it is not as strong as a normal laminated screen and in extreme low temperatures (such as north Sweden...), they are more prone to cracking.

F i F

44,153 posts

252 months

Thursday 30th April 2009
quotequote all
JimexPL said:
LongLiveTazio said:
As an aside, do S40s come with the heated front windscreen like other Fords? I can't see it listed on the standard equipment anywhere but I'd be puzzled if it didn't have it?
No. Volvo don't fit the heated windscreen because it is not as strong as a normal laminated screen and in extreme low temperatures (such as north Sweden...), they are more prone to cracking.
Just say I've driven Fords with heated screens in very low temperatures <-20C and never had an issue but as above, heated screens are not a Volvo option.

plfrench

2,391 posts

269 months

Wednesday 6th May 2009
quotequote all
I'd suggest the manual D5, although I'm biased! I had the 1.6d in my focus and it was underpowered in that. The Volvo is getting on for a couple of hundred kilos heavier, so would be even worse. I had a lot of reliability issues with the 1.6d too, as did a colleague with the 2.0d in his V50. I've done over 25k in 8months in mine, and had no problems at all. Now averaging around 36-37mpg too for mixed driving with reasonable enthusiasm drivingOne thing I would warn however is that just because it is based on the Focus chassis, don't expect Focus like agility. You really feel that extra weight.One final thing worth mentioning is that the dealer service is first class!

Martin Keene

9,448 posts

226 months

Wednesday 6th May 2009
quotequote all
Either T5, D5 or 2.0 Diesel.

The 2.4 petrol is barely anymore ecomincal than the T5, but is no where near as quick. And the 1.6's are slow to the point of being dangerous.

Largely depends on your budget. The 2.0D was put in from day one, but the D5 didn't go in until ~2007, so they still fetch big money.

valve bounce66

2,708 posts

215 months

Wednesday 6th May 2009
quotequote all
2.o D euro3 for lower service bills and slightly better performance and economy.smilethe engine is great,slightly noisey at very low revs,but pulls like a steam train and averages 40 mpg.

baptistsan

Original Poster:

1,839 posts

211 months

Thursday 21st May 2009
quotequote all
Thanks for all the replies guys.

In the end have a 1.8 petrol sat on the drive. I know some think the engine is a bit gutless but only need it for workhorse stuff. Good price and mileage so am happy.

Now just need to find an independent I can trust the car with. So anyone know anyone in either Suffolk or the West Midlands?

Thanks once again all.

amsie

197 posts

178 months

Sunday 2nd August 2009
quotequote all
Supprised to hear that about Volvo not having a front heated windscreen.

Shame, the S40 is a lovely looking car, but that one issue may have stopped me buying one. :-(

F i F

44,153 posts

252 months

Monday 3rd August 2009
quotequote all
why? If the depths of winter you still have to clear sides, fire up the engine, leave on defrost while you clear the sides and rear, by the time they are done front is melted and what is left is so soft that cleaning is easy.

Really is not an issue in the real world imo. Heated front screens very overrated devices after having had one.

mondayo

1,825 posts

264 months

Monday 3rd August 2009
quotequote all
I think that the heated screen is a useful extra, but it wouldn't make or break a potential purchase.

Sometimes (around here) only my front screen is frozen...and then a heated screen is very useful. Sadly I don't have one on the current car, but it's not the end of the world!