I'm looking to swap my 2007 Ford Focus Zetec estate for a similar aged Volvo S40 (probably 1.6 petrol) as I can't tolerate the back pain the Focus is giving me any more.
Has anyone got any comments on the S40 of this age, good or bad? Are the seats comfortable for long journeys and has anyone got a realistic MPG for the 1.6 petrol?
I had one as a courtesy car for 3 days and was impressed, the spec seemed good even for the 1.6 S variant and the prices seem to be around Ford Focus level as well ( I know the S40 is based on the Focus chassis so the handling is pretty good)
|
Try asking the guys on this site - www.volvoforums.org.uk/index.php
I have a V50 - the estate version of the S40. A great car in general but these are some of the issues I have that will stop me owning another model:
- Cramped inside but no smaller than an A4;
- Boot is far too small considering it's an estate;
- Footwell/ front leg space is too small (drivers feet can get caught when taking feet of pedals).
- No footrest next to clutch;
- Poor headlights;
- Seat adjustments are difficult to reach; and
- Doors get stuck in sub zero temperaturs.
|
- No footrest next to clutch;
I noticed that about my Focus - must be due to the same chassis/layout!
|
|
|
|
|
I had an older S40 (98) and found it great - only sold the car recently with 140k miles on the clock. I don't know how it compares to the new engines, but I had the 1.8 engine and found it just about ok so maybe the 1.6 has too little power?
|
|
There doesn't seem to be a lot of cost difference between the 1.8 and 1.6, but there are a lot more of the 1.6 S models about - must be a fleet car thing!
|
S40/V50 seats are very comfy even base spec as I have. I wanted to buy Octavia Scout but found seats uncomfortable at the top of the back rest so went for the V50 2.0d. Drove from SW Scotland to Bath with only a 10 min pee stop no backache at all.
Agree dipped headlights are poor.
V50 boot small, we looked at the S40 and boot is a good size but opening into it is not.
I don't have a problem with the position of the pedals.
Not a problrm for me generally but rear passenger legroom is poor.
I have had mine since July 25 and covered 12000m (1st service Friday) and it's a pretty good car. Build quality seems good so far. Gearbox a bit difficult in 1,2,3 sometimes. Good standard stereo.
Fuel consumption of 2.0d around 46mpg.
Would I go for another one? Possibly not due to lack of boot space.
Edited by loskie on 20/01/2010 at 22:06
|
S40 best things? The seats - though not as good as Saab.
Worst thing? Build quality and reliability. Worst car I've ever owned (yes, it was even worse than a Vauxhall Viva and a Lancia)
And the dealers? Pretty rubbish - unable to ever fix a fault without inducing another, and you had to fight really, really hard for them to ever accept responsibility.
Not a patch on Honda or Toyota - not even in the same league.
|
Snakey, did you make the move to Volvo? I am currently looking at replacing a written off 53 plate C-max with either an S40 (1.6 S, petrol. Test drive today, liked it) or a Focus Zetec Climate (1.8 petrol), both 57 plates, similar mileages and the same price.
Am curious as to what you decided on. We already have a 56 plate 1.6 Focus Sport and that's been fine, but I think the seats are small and the boot space with a full size spare is limited.
|
|
|
|
