I had a used V40 1.6 in 2001, and replaced it with a brand new 1.6 run-out model in late 2003. Both were faultless and a pleasure to own. The run-outs were very highly-specced, full leather, a/c, etc. It's true that the engine was no ball of fire in the mid-range, but above 60mph it seemed to have a second lease of life and could more than keep up with the motorway pace and actually felt more peppy. I recall high 30s mpg overall, and it swallowed all the gear my young family of 4 could throw at it on long trips down to the Pyrenees, often at around 85-90mph for long stretches.
The 1.9 diesel version came in 2 power outputs - 102 or 115 bhp. Perfectly adequate, but not the best diesel engines of the era and I wouldn't bother hunting down a diesel. I think the majority of V40s had the 1.8 petrol engine.
The V40 still looks good IMHO, and I would say is a better car than the subsequent V50!
|
|
|
The V40 isn't anything like the big Swedish tanks (actually that's no longer fair - they drive much better now): they share a lot of parts with the Ford Focus and are more Focus-size than Mondeo. So make sure it has enough room for you.
The 2.0 diesel goes as well as a 2.0 Focus TDCI, but a 1.6 petrol is I believe on the sluggish side.
You are thinking S40/V50 = current generation. The S40/V40 had nothing to do with Focus - it was Mitsubishi Carisma based and made by nedcar in Holland. 1.9D diesel engines in those are old school Renault units.
Edited by v0n on 14/11/2009 at 02:10
|
Thanks for the comments.
My current Mondeo is probably too big for current requirements and I was considering downsizing a little so the fact that the V40 is more Focus-sized is fine. I am 6?2? so legroom is important. I have read that some drivers can?t get on with the V40 seats though I guess this would vary very much from person to person. I get on fine with my wife?s Focus ? but it is the ?Chic? with higher-specced leather upholstery; I know that some don?t like the Focus seats ? but they may be talking about the lower specced model.
I had actually considered getting a Focus estate but, somehow, they don?t look nearly as good as the hatchback. The estate bit on the Focus looks like an afterthought, whereas the V40 looks as though it was ?meant to be?.
BTW, sorry, I should have added a ;-) after the ageist insinuation about Volvo owners!
|
|
You have to be sure which model you are talking about, I went from a Mitsubishi Carisma (as in Volvo clone) to a MK2 focus talk about chalk and cheese, the Carisma was like driving a tank in comparison. If you are considering a post 2004 Focus based Volvo it will be in a different league to the Dutch built Volvo dating from the 1990's.
Edited by Old Navy on 14/11/2009 at 09:22
|
O.N., I have since found out that the car is a very late Classic V40SE which I understand is the top of the range.
From what I have read, the early V40s handled poorly but then, around 2000, significant improvements were made. I understand what you mean about 'Focus handling' - I love driving my wife's Focus after the old, more tank-like, Mk 1 (f/l)Mondeo.
|
|
My carisma was an 03 elegance model, leather, cruise, and all the usual goodies, still a poor driving experience compared to any Mondeo. Its only saving grace was that it was in immaculate condition and very cheap, That in itself should be an indicator of its dynamic qualities and spare parts prices, (mine had a new gearbox under warranty at 12,000 miles). The bill was horrific, glad it didn't come my way.
|
Sorry, I forgot to add that the engine is the 1.8 petrol which, by 2004, was 122bhp. From the reports that I have read, the early examples (to 2000) were the particularly poor handlers. Is it possible that improvements were never made to the Charisma?
I would expect anything (other than an F1 machine) to handle worse than a Focus and, tbh, I'm looking for something to tide me over for 4 to 5 years until we reassess the situation when we have both completely given up work. I would continue to use my regular independent man rather than a Volvo agent where possible.
|
|
As ever, its what you want that counts, so drive it, poke around and see if you like it. Not everyone needs the handling of a Focus in their daily driving. Volvos are very well thought out and while the V40 may have common bits with the Charisma, it still feels like a Volvo, speaking as a past owner of a Volvo.
|
|
|
Sorry I forgot to add that the engine is the 1.8 petrol which by 2004 was 122bhp.
I would check if this is the troublesome GDi engine, if it is walk away.
The EGR system needs very careful maintenance, if it is not done (40k I believe) the engine suffers carbon build up, decokes on these are not uncommon.
|
|
|
|
I forgot to mention, it was a Volvo gearbox.
Edit:- Agreed gmac, If it is a GDi engine steer well clear.
Edited by Old Navy on 14/11/2009 at 13:10
|
|
I would try driving the V40 and see if you like it. They were very nice looking cars but not very pleasant to drive, though better than the Mitsubishi Carisma on which they were based. The diesel especially was a right dog. Slow, noisy and not particularly economical. The Focus based V50 is in a different universe in terms of the driving experience.
|
|
I have a 03 diesel that has now done 157,000 miles, the (what are called) phase 2 are much better than the phase 1, the change was around 2000 I think. I was going to nominate it for the best car I have owned in a recent thread, but then I have owned some dogs. You might find this site worth looking at www.volvoforums.org.uk/forum.php
|
Again, many thanks for the comments. I would certainly need a test drive to judge driveability and, indeed, whether or not I would fit into it. I tend not to drive ?on the limit? so I wouldn?t expect the handling, particularly on the later model, to be too much of an issue for me.
The information re: the GDi engine was all new to me ? in fact, I assumed that the letters GDi must have referred to the diesel [honest :-( ]
Big question ?? does anyone know if the later Classic V40 1.8 petrol models have the GDi engine and if it had been successfully adapted by then???
|
|
Waino, the GDi (Gasoline Direct injection) engine was never perfected, please read the Mitsubishi and Volvo forums, and do internet search, many, many, horror stories.
Edited by Old Navy on 14/11/2009 at 18:19
|
|
Thanks for the warnings, chaps, it looks as though a Focus estate goes back to the top of the list. It will appear that we suffer from a massive lack of imagination, though, if Mrs W and I both have Focuses ;-)
Edited by Waino on 14/11/2009 at 18:31
|
You could call yourselves the bifocals.
No, it just shows that you both favour a value-for-money car (well, they are if you buy secondhand) that's also good to drive. There should be lots to choose from whatever your price range.
if you want to try an alternative, look at an Octavia: lots of room in both hatch and estate, and they're shorter than the Mondeo.
|
Around the early noughties I was getting given an S40 or V40 pretty much every time I rented a car, which at the time meant every week. I guess the rental company got a huge batch of them cheap. At the time I was driving large distances across Germany, frequently around 2000 to 3000km a week visiting customers.
What I remember was there were two different 1.8 petrol engines. One of them came with lots of kit and a big label on the instrument panel saying "Super Unleaded Only" or something like that and was quite spritely to drive. The other didn't and wasn't. I assume the former was the GDI, the latter I don't know.
I also remember a 1.6 litre version where negotiating hills on the autobahn required 3rd gear and lots of swearing. The diesel version made it into my mental worst cars of all time category (does anyone else have one of these?). There are apparently various hot versions available but Hertz never gave me the opportunity of driving any of those. All had nice seats in that volvoy soft-to-begin-with-then-firm sort of way. I would consider one as a banger if it were cheap enough, but a Mondeo is better to drive.
Edited by Bagpuss on 14/11/2009 at 18:58
|
|
It pays to read the CBC - according to HJ, the later 1.8, which one would assume would be fitted in the last of the line cars, was not GDi. So it may pay to check the cc on the reg doc to see what it has.
|
As many people have said the V40 has more bits in common with the Mitsubishi Carisma; it's the V50 that is based on the Focus platform. Mainly it was the corners as such that are shared with the Carisma/Lancer (that bit's important as this means that suspension bits from Lancer Evo's fit...)
The 4 cylinder petrol engines are 80% of the 5 Cylinder that is fitted in Volvos and Fords, unless it's the 1.8i which is the Mitsi GDI engine (and avoid it as it's early generation Direct Injection Petrol)
The Diesels (102 and 115bhp) are based on the Renault engine; the 115 is denoted as a 1.9D, I think the 102 is just D.
There were a number of trim levels; I used to run a V40 1.9D Sport and found them very nice...
If in any doubt of the engine/spec phone a Volvo main dealer or specialist with either the Reg or the VIN; I know of one specialist who can decode the VIN to tell you what engine it has. The main dealer can tell you what spec it left the factory with in terms of accessory packs etc.
The easy well to tell a Phase 1 and Phase 2 apart is either the side marker lights (phase 1's have bigger lights) and the position of the electric window switches (p1's they're down in the console, p2 on the doors); also there's a dial between the front central air vents on a Phase 2 car, which isn't there on a Phase 1.
In terms of comfort I'm 6'4 and never had any problems with the V40 (or actually any of the Volvo's I've driven or travelled in)
|
I had a V40 2.0T (the light-pressure turbo 160bhp job).
Cracking engine with instant squirt in any gear, the best front seats of any car I've ever sat in, handling was Safe with a capital S apart from amusing torque steer, especially on wet roundabouts and worn tyres :-D
Ride not very good, a bit crashy. Interior definitely NOT as roomy as equivalent Passats / Mondeos.
I liked it, largely because of the engine (modified with a bleed valve for faster boost climb).
|
I'm pretty sure that the dodgy GDI engine was quietly dropped by Volvo at the time of the car's facelift in 2000, so the OP should be safe on that front. The facelift included substantial changes to suspension, tracking, even the wheelbase was extended a few mm I recall.
For the right price you could be looking at a well-equipped, safe, perfectly usable vehicle for everyday life. Not a boy racer's car, but the OP doesn't want that!
|
The easy way to tell a Phase 1 and Phase 2 apart .....>>
Ed, could you tell me, please, the significance of 'phase 1' and 'phase 2'?
Does this relate to the reported vast handling improvement made around yr 2000, or the change from the (unreliable) GDi engine to 'something else'. Could I ask what the 'something else' was, and what made it a better engine?
Many thanks Waino
|
|
Id pose these questions about the engines on the Volvo forum - they WILL know the answer, they are those kinda people :-) Apparently you can tell by looking under the bonnet if it is GDi.
|
|
"Phase 1" refers to the pre-facelift cars (1995-2000) and "phase 2" the revised model from 2000 onwards, with better handling qnd equipment. The 1.8 Gasoline Direct Injection engine option was culled about this time, whilst the "regular" 1.8i engine carried on for the rest of the car's life, and was the most common/popular engine I think.
|
|
|
|
|
