Volvo S40 1.6 Diesel Se

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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....
 

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