# Volvo S40 1.6 Diesel Se



## dawnsurprise (12 Sep 2007)

Anyone any feedback on this car
are they reliable?
economical?
cheap to service?

all experiences good or bad welcome

still have not decided what type of diesel car to buy...


----------



## Caveat (12 Sep 2007)

dawnsurprise said:


> Anyone any feedback on this car
> are they reliable?
> economical?
> cheap to service?
> ...


 
Can't help much on the Volvo myself.

As always, I'd advise checking www.honestjohn.co.uk & [broken link removed] 

Only thing I can say is that AFAIK, Volvos depreciate quite badly & I'm guessing would not be particularly cheap to service either.

_Edit: OK just checked reliabilityindex - it does pretty well at 15th out of 100 cars of the last decade._


----------



## Caveat (13 Sep 2007)

Hey Dawnsurprise

Since you had originally considered an Accord, what about a 01 - 06 Civic saloon?  Not the best looking in this incarnation but still a very good car.

The hatches can be highly prized (and priced) but there are some good deals available with the less in demand saloon version.

Is your preference for diesel purely for economic reasons?

If so, the 1.5 Vtec petrol engine featured in the link below is a very economical, excellent engine.  Car is nicely specced too.

http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=746448


----------



## amgd28 (13 Sep 2007)

Have an S40 SE, although 1.8 Petrol (and biofuel) instead of 1.6 Diesel
So I can't help you on the engine
But I can tell you it is the most comfortable car I have ever driven, and the interior spec is really great, I'm really glad I went for it in the end


----------



## tosullivan (13 Sep 2007)

I would rather spend the money on the 1.8 Diesel Focus....


----------



## westside (13 Sep 2007)

I have a 05 1.6 Petrol SE (with winter pack). Very high spec, exceptionally comfortable seats. 

I get 40 mpg with a mix of town plus some country runs. 

Recently while on holiday I have a 1.6 Diesel Focus C-MAX which I believe has the same engine. I was very impressed with it and think it would be very nice in the S40. Excellent fuel ecomony also.

12,000 mile service interval on S40 1.5 petrol. Got mine serviced few months back and if I recall it was approx 240. There are 17" wheels on the SE and it cost me 133 for a replacement tyre recently. 

Only problems : very slight rattly noice from passenger side of dash. Once or twice the stereo did not work when I switched on the ignition. (wonder if anyone else experienced this).


----------



## Jeff_24 (13 Sep 2007)

The new S40 is a very good car, much much better than the Cariama based previous generation. They are not as good to drive as the Focus even though they are based on them. They are extremely well equipped although I'd recommend hunting down an SE model for the upgrade alloys, leather and dolby pro logic stereo. They also seem to be holding their value quite well so far, '04 registered ones are fetching 15-17k mark. And also being a Volvo it will have the most comfortable seats of any car.


----------



## Jeff_24 (13 Sep 2007)

Caveat said:


> Hey Dawnsurprise
> 
> Since you had originally considered an Accord, what about a 01 - 06 Civic saloon?  Not the best looking in this incarnation but still a very good car.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry but that is positively minging! You're recommending that over an S40??


----------



## Caveat (13 Sep 2007)

Jeff_24 said:


> I'm sorry but that is positively minging! You're recommending that over an S40??


 
Well yes!

Ok, doesn't look great and the S40 will be more comfortable (but I'm not that pushed on the looks of the S40 either). I'd still easily go for the Civic over the Volvo not least for price & reliability.

So there.


----------



## Jeff_24 (13 Sep 2007)

Caveat said:


> Well yes!
> 
> Ok, doesn't look great and the S40 will be more comfortable (but I'm not that pushed on the looks of the S40 either). I'd still easily go for the Civic over the Volvo not least for price & reliability.
> 
> So there.



That Civic looks like a Jap or Singapore Import. The leather looks cheap and plasticky and the "hearing aid beige" colour doesn't do it any favours either. That said, I was never a fan of the seventh generation Civic anyway.

Sorry


----------



## Caveat (13 Sep 2007)

Jeff_24 said:


> That Civic looks like a Jap or Singapore Import. The leather looks cheap and plasticky and the "hearing aid beige" colour doesn't do it any favours either. That said, I was never a fan of the seventh generation Civic anyway.
> 
> Sorry


 
We'll see what Dawnsurprise thinks shall we?


----------



## Jody (13 Sep 2007)

Had this one when it was released in Jan 05 and loved loved loved it, also had the winter pack with was some serious spec, very fuel efficient and enough torque to pull a rhino, the most comfortable driving seat in a car to date and we have had a few !! very solid and safe feeling car, never let us down but we did get a few punctures and only one make of tyres would fit and they where expensive but would recommend


----------



## 5Times (14 Sep 2007)

Excellent engine anyway, why not try it in another brand as I tested it in a CMAX and it was very good. Dosent have anywhere near the grunt of the 2.0 but still very good.

Volvos are expensive to service, fords are not.


----------



## dawnsurprise (14 Sep 2007)

hi everyone
Thanks a mil for comments... 
drove a diesel C-max on holidays... nice height, but car would not pull your socks off... .very disappointed with performance... and not crazy on looks... sorry...

looked at the civic... its not bad (a little dated), however it is 2002.  i am currently driving a 2005 megane cabrio so i dont really want to buy a car any older than 07 demo model.. the only car i would consider buying in 2006 is the accord as they are way out of my price range for even a demo model..

i now want a car with 4 doors, comfortable seats, good looking, nice spec, reliable and doesent depreciate at a ridiculous rate..  dont want a car too low to ground either, as i am pregnant and i need to think ahead, fo both comfort, safety and of course room in car for baby seats, buggies etc etc.

i have always driven diesel cars, until my last car that is (which i bought for style - got it out of my system now!) , and i really miss them, i do about 25k km per year, (thats last 2 years, and that is because i was sparing the weekend driving on my car, and we were using my husbands instead.!) we would drvie the diesel more at weekends, if we had one and the mileage would be over 20k miles p.a.  so it is worth me getting a diesel... plus the resale  value is better, and are more economical to drive... the new diesel engines are comming down in engine size, which makes tax/insurance less expensive (except my beloved honda accord that is)... so i am looking around at the moment... 

here is my list of considerations.... ALL DIESEL
accord, volvo s40, tyota avensis/corolla(maybe a bit small and basisc?), nissan quasqui (cant be got), mazda 6, peugoet 407, maybe ford mondeo (dont know anyone with one, and there is always the niggle in my mind about fords reliability and economy to drive - were always fuel guzzles)
dad keeps going on about cheverleot???? (he has a liking for the new captivia!) dont know a thing about them...

dont want any of the following:
VW,s skodas, kias, hyundais, seats, fiats no jeeps (got this out of my system at last!),  

oh my god... my head is addled.... choices choices.... HELP!


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2007)

dawnsurprise said:


> hi everyone
> Thanks a mil for comments...
> drove a diesel C-max on holidays... nice height, but car would not pull your socks off... .very disappointed with performance... and not crazy on looks... sorry...


What was the engine size?
AFAIK the same engines are used in both cars.


----------



## dawnsurprise (14 Sep 2007)

think it was a 1.5 or 1.6 ????
must ask hubby


----------



## Caveat (14 Sep 2007)

OK - from your list, if the Accord is out, I would say Mazda 6.

Personally, I wouldn't buy any French car.

(Or Italian for that matter)

I'd worry about Volvo depreciation. 

Mondeo should be worth considering.

I'd definitely stay away from Chevrolet!


----------



## dawnsurprise (14 Sep 2007)

question.. is the mazda 6 being changed next year?

hard to find one with a leather interior

thought volvo held its value??.... isnt it the "accountants car"???


----------



## amgd28 (14 Sep 2007)

dawnsurprise said:


> hi everyone
> 
> i now want a car with 4 doors, comfortable seats, good looking, nice spec, reliable and doesent depreciate at a ridiculous rate..  dont want a car too low to ground either, as i am pregnant and i need to think ahead, fo both comfort, safety and of course room in car for baby seats, buggies etc etc.



Hi - I love my S40, but I don't think that given your requiremnets it is the one for you. It is not as big as the mondeo, 407, passat or Mazda 6
My wife is pregnant also and finds my car a bit too low to the ground for her, especially when putting in our 18month old into the baby seat.  She is used to the height of the Honda CRV that she has,and has found since she got this it is a lot easier on her back for putting the baby in and out of the car.

Also, the S40 has a decent boot, but not a cavernous one. It's fine for us because for a big journey we generally take the CRV, but you might want more room.

I love the look of the new mondeo, and they use the same engines as the volvo (actually other way around I think, Volvo uses Ford engines), so I can't see any difference in reliability there, and you will get a lot for your money.


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2007)

dawnsurprise said:


> maybe ford mondeo (dont know anyone with one, and there is always the niggle in my mind about fords reliability and economy to drive - were always fuel guzzles)


I just drove the new Mondeo and it's probably a better drive than my Audi A4.
I have no connection with Ford in any way but I have owned a few of them and have always considered them excellent cars to drive. They have also been totally reliable.


----------



## dawnsurprise (14 Sep 2007)

honda crv lovely... 2.2 engine?  what mpg is she getting?
bit expensive too..


----------



## Caveat (14 Sep 2007)

dawnsurprise said:


> thought volvo held its value??.... isnt it the "accountants car"???


 
Don't know about that.  Do a quick google - some positive depreciation reports but most seem to place the S40 at average to high depreciation levels.


----------



## dawnsurprise (14 Sep 2007)

which mondeo diesel engine?


----------



## amgd28 (14 Sep 2007)

dawnsurprise said:


> honda crv lovely... 2.2 engine?  what mpg is she getting?
> bit expensive too..



Actually it is a 2.0 VTec petrol. It's not a new one, it's a 2003 car, but can't beat them for reliability. The fuel consumption is actually not that bad, it is not really much more than my S40. don't knwo the exact figures, but she gets around 300miles per full tank, so whatever that is in mpg.....
We would have liked the 2.2 Diesel but it would have been a bit of a stretch and she was given a fuel card at work around the same time, so we went with the petrol.
There might be better value now on say a '04-'05 model 2.2 CRV seeing as there is a new model out


----------



## dawnsurprise (14 Sep 2007)

35mpg?


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2007)

> she gets around 300miles per full tank


 I get 350 out of a tank (65L to fill) with a 1.8L turbo, and I don't drive for fuel economy. I think any of the other cars you are looking at will beat 300 miles per tank.


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2007)

dawnsurprise said:


> 35mpg?



Not unless it's avery small tank.


----------



## amgd28 (14 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> I get 350 out of a tank (65L to fill) with a 1.8L turbo, and I don't drive for fuel economy. I think any of the other cars you are looking at will beat 300 miles per tank.



Just whether it makes a difference, it is all done in heavy traffic. We live in Knocklyon and she works on the quays, so it's generally bumper to bumper so I presume this affects the consumption.

I would also think that the 2.2Diesel would be far easier on the juice....


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2007)

amgd28 said:


> Just whether it makes a difference, it is all done in heavy traffic. We live in Knocklyon and she works on the quays, so it's generally bumper to bumper so I presume this affects the consumption.
> 
> I would also think that the 2.2Diesel would be far easier on the juice....



I live about 2 miles from you and most of my driving is done in the city as well.


----------



## amgd28 (14 Sep 2007)

Hi Purple,
this is not a 'my car is better than yours' thread. I don't drive the CRV, my wife does, and if recommending to anyone I would recommend a diesel. Perhaps my comment that its fuel consumption is similar to my car's merely reflects that I am not getting enough out of my S40 1.8 (Full tank of ~50L gets me around 400KM, which I presume is poor enough)

I merely commented that I would think the s40 may be too low for the poster to be putting in and taking out a baby, given that women can get back problems during pregnancy etc. I contrasted this with the effect of a higher-based vehicle had on my wife's back, and she is much more comfortable putting the baby in and out of her vehicle than mine. It just so happens that my wife's is a CRV and the OP asked what consumption it was.
I know a 2.0L petrol SUV is going to be bettered by a saloon, but if fuel consumption is a high priority, then someone would not go for a petrol SUV, however it was not a big priority for us, reliability, space and height were the issues.

So I'm not trying to have an argument here, a diesel saloon is certainly going to give much better consumption figures than a petrol SUV, it stands to reason. The OP obviously knows this as she is looking for a diesel

Anyway, I think we are probably straying off topic for this discussion, I was only trying to give my perspective to the OP


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2007)

Hi amgd80, my point is that neither car gets good feul economy not that one is better than the other. 

My wife has a Galaxy (and a bad back) and finds the high seat position great for getting our three in and out (or did when they were smaller). It's a 1.9L turbo diesel, loads or torque and power and goes forever.

A mid or large sized diesel people mover will have better fuel consumption than an S40 or most of the other petrol cars discussed above.
Considering the circumstances of the OP I think the C-Max or Quasqui are the best options from the cars she has listed.
I would look at a second hand S-Max as well.


----------



## amgd28 (14 Sep 2007)

Fair enough Purple.
I agree the S-Max could offer the higher position, the space, good economy and a good driving experience, and I think they look fairly good as well


----------



## 5Times (14 Sep 2007)

What about the SEAT Altea ? have you any children.


----------



## Caveat (14 Sep 2007)

5Times said:


> What about the SEAT Altea ? have you any children.


 
OP had stipulated no SEAT.


----------



## Jeff_24 (14 Sep 2007)

The S40 has a decent enough sized boot but with very limited access. I'd also recommend having a look at the Mondeo before you make your decision. It's better than everything currently on the market including the 3 Series.


----------

