|
Also, don't forget that we're just entering what's traditionally the quieter time of year for car sales. So prices tend to get pushed downwards for the next 2 months - until garages start to look to the new year sales, and build up stock in December again.
Add to that the 'scrappage' schemes and manufacturer discounted finanace on PCPs, etc, which are pushing new car sales at the expense of used sales, leading to even more used cars on the market, along with that reduced demand.
All that adds up to downward pressure on prices, and a buyers market.
|
|
|
|
The V40 isn't a particularly uncommon car, if he wants a V40 then that is probably what he should hang on for.
I can't beleive one can't be found somewhere. Although there are far more diesels out there than petrols they do exist (not that there is particularly anything wrong with the diesel version and in that price range you could find a Volvo approved one).
|
"not that there is particularly anything wrong with the diesel version"
The Volvo 2.0 yes, it should be ok though it's still relatively unproven having only been around for three years so far but the 1.6 diesel is the very same notorious PSA motor we often refer to as the diesel of doom on this here forum. I would sidestep one of these.
|
"not that there is particularly anything wrong with the diesel version" The Volvo 2.0 yes, it should be ok though it's still relatively unproven having only been around for three years so far but the 1.6 diesel is the very same notorious PSA motor we often refer to as the diesel of doom on this here forum. I would sidestep one of these.
It isn't the diesel of doom. The early ones gave some issues if they weren't serviced properly but they are a decent engine as long as you look after it. For whatever reason it seems to be in Fords that they gave the most trouble.
I wouldn't have any qualms about one in a lower mileage Volvo - they rarely seem to have issues in Volvos - particulaly if it has full Volvo history. I've seen these engines at 250k used in taxis still going just fine.
You certainly need to be careful and if approaching a 2006 car with it in with 120k on the clock and one stamp in the book and a whining turbo I'd avoid but I am not convinced later serviced examples are any worse than anything else out there.
That said, if the OP wants a petrol, get a petrol as they are out there.
|
"It isn't the diesel of doom. The early ones gave some issues if they weren't serviced properly but they are a decent engine as long as you look after it. For whatever reason it seems to be in Fords that they gave the most trouble."
It's a later 8v version of the same engine and although much improved it's still weak. I have a neighbour who ran a 2012 Citroen Berlingo as a taxi with the same motor which required a new engine after 80,000 miles and know of another who required a new turbo on his Mondeo at less than 60k. Both were regularly serviced, the Ford at the local main dealer. A co-worker required a turbo at under 60k on his 59 Peugeot Partner van but this would be the older 16v version. A quick look online will reveal plenty of cases of turbo failure and related issues with 8v versions of this engine. I'll agree that for some reason problems are less common in the Volvo and I wonder if this is down to any changes they've made or just better standard of servicing by their dealers and/or a higher likelihood of Volvo owners maintaining a dealer history. The trade are however rightly wary of this engine and this shows at auction. I fully accept you can be lucky and see 100k upwards without trouble but equally you could be left with a crippling bill at a surprisingly low mileage. I'd buy the petrol or stump up the extra for the later Volvo 2.0.
Edited by SLO76 on 29/09/2017 at 19:29
|
|
|
|
Thanks for all the feedback and good advice. He will probably rule out anything high powered such as the ST on insurance grounds. And actually he is not a fast driver.
I hadn't realised that the 1.6 petrol in the V40 had that reassuring ancestry
While I am reinstating it as the front runner I am astounded at the V40 prices. At this time of year I think in terms of 2018 so add a year to age. £12k for a soon to be 4 year old car is a lot. Especially as I could buy a base model new via a broker for under £16k Thats a little beside the point as he doesn't want to spend tbat much but it does point up the high prices for used examples.
I will discuss it further with.him. We have a few weeks to look around. He shares my tight grasp on his wallet so maybe when it comes down to it he will baulk at the prices and save a few bob by buying one of the alternatives.
At least I am not having to talk him out of exotica. What are the youth cming too when their vehicle of choice is a Volvo?
Edited by catsdad on 29/09/2017 at 16:52
|
|
|
|
|
The T2/3/4 1.6 petrol motors in the V40 are descended from the excellent Yamaha designed Zetec SE engines that Ford started using in 96. There's no reason why they shouldn't be totally reliable and I'd happily recommend one. It's worth paying a bit extra for a car he likes, it'll save his sanity and wallet over the longterm. As for alternatives that are a little more exotic than a run of the mill family hatch and noting that he's no fan of my usual suggestions (Civic/Mazda 3) I'd tell him to look at the Seat Leon 1.4 TSi FR and possibly a Focus ST. Both are great fun to drive and to date are reliable. The Focus uses a turbocharged version of Mazda's L series motor so it's unlikely to go wrong if looked after. Some issues with coolant leaks on them so watch levels otherwise they're pretty tough. Buy only with full Ford service history and look out for crash damage and faked histories. Fast Fords are always easy to sell on if looked after properly and kept standard. The Seat is an attractive model in FR spec. Cheap to insure, sporty to look at and goes very well while still hitting 50mpg with a light right foot. The later belt driven TSi motors are proving reliable so far and from what I can see on their specification there's little to fear from a dealer maintained car.
A shame the OP's son doesn't like the current shape (I'm presuming - I can undestand it if he was referring to the mk2, rather bland inside and out in comparison) Mazda3, as its just the reliable but great handling car on a budget he's looking for. The (bit) more sporty 165 model is quicker but I'm not so keen on the firm ride on the 18in rims of the Sport Nav models - far better on the 16in rims of the well-specced/priced (most sought-after) SE-L Nav models. If they aren't keen on the external looks of the 3 in hatch form, try the less common fastback - nicer looking (essentially a small Mazda6), but check that the far narrower boot opening is sufficient for their needs.
I too like the Leon, and of the different shape variants (the 1.4TSI FR is, I agree, the one to go for) the slightly smaller, but better-looking 3dr SC as opposed to the 5dr model is the 'young person's' car. To me it resembles and goes a bit like the early 2000s Civic Type R (also 3dr) and still has the 380ltr boot of the 5rd model, just a bit less leg room in the back. Nicest in black, silver or bright (Emocicon) red, preferably on 17in rims (earlier 140PS models); 18in later (150PS) models still ok but check it out on the test drive to see if its too firm a ride. When I was in the market back earlier in the year these were a real bargain compared to the similar Golf GT 1.4TSI 150 - not so nice dash but serveral £000s cheaper for essentially the same car underneath.
|
|
Nowt wrong with a Volvo, Catsdad...I've had 3 over the years (a 260..a 760 and a V70) and they have all been really good, safe and reliable cars...but yes, I guess it seems kinda strange that it would be the choice for a young guy when so much exotica and bling is available these days.
Perhaps he just has a streak of commonsense..lol
|
|
I owned a number of volvos over my younger years.
My first was a 360 GL. 2.0 litre, and a lot of fun. Moderately quick too, and capable of giving a fright to an XR2 or XR3i.
My second was a 440 GLTi, the 1.7 unit from (I think) Renault ? Quite a nice car.
Then I had an 850 2.0 20V GLTi saloon. Comfortable, and quick.
And then I saw an 850 T5-R saloon. In yellow. And I fell in love.
Come to think of it, there wasn't a lot of 'commonsense' going on with that lot, was there !
|
I owned a number of volvos over my younger years.
My first was a 360 GL. 2.0 litre, and a lot of fun. Moderately quick too, and capable of giving a fright to an XR2 or XR3i.
My second was a 440 GLTi, the 1.7 unit from (I think) Renault ? Quite a nice car.
Then I had an 850 2.0 20V GLTi saloon. Comfortable, and quick.
And then I saw an 850 T5-R saloon. In yellow. And I fell in love.
Come to think of it, there wasn't a lot of 'commonsense' going on with that lot, was there !
I grew up with a series of Volvo's.
A 1981 340 GL
1986 340 GL 1.7 4dr
1989 240 GLT
1990 440 Turbo
Then I ran a series of 440's as company motors. None were exactly drivers cars but childhood memories and rose tinted specs and all that. I'd love an early 440 GLT or 480 ES with the Renault 1721 motor. Weren't well made but they were mechanically pretty robust.
|
|
|
|
Good stuff.....I always bought the big engined beasties...and the V70 with it's 5 cylinder symphony was always a delight to drive.
Tried to find a nice T5 but never really came across one that I felt comfortable enough to buy...would have bought a nice 960 too had I been able to find one that suited.
Edited by nellyjak on 29/09/2017 at 20:39
|
|
|
|
|
The T2/3/4 1.6 petrol motors in the V40 are descended from the excellent Yamaha designed Zetec SE engines that Ford started using in 96. There's no reason why they shouldn't be totally reliable and I'd happily recommend one. It's worth paying a bit extra for a car he likes, it'll save his sanity and wallet over the longterm. As for alternatives that are a little more exotic than a run of the mill family hatch and noting that he's no fan of my usual suggestions (Civic/Mazda 3) I'd tell him to look at the Seat Leon 1.4 TSi FR and possibly a Focus ST. Both are great fun to drive and to date are reliable. The Focus uses a turbocharged version of Mazda's L series motor so it's unlikely to go wrong if looked after. Some issues with coolant leaks on them so watch levels otherwise they're pretty tough. Buy only with full Ford service history and look out for crash damage and faked histories. Fast Fords are always easy to sell on if looked after properly and kept standard. The Seat is an attractive model in FR spec. Cheap to insure, sporty to look at and goes very well while still hitting 50mpg with a light right foot. The later belt driven TSi motors are proving reliable so far and from what I can see on their specification there's little to fear from a dealer maintained car.
When I looked at the V40 in petrol form (either a T2 or [preferably a] T3) earlier in the year, I got very confused at what car had what engine in it: I don't remember seeing (and just checked here on the car-by-car section) on Volvo's website any 1.6 petrol engine, only what looked to be, at least at one time, T2s with either 1.5ltr (presumably a turbocharged version) or 2ltrs (possibly not) AND the same again for the higher powered T3. Those on sale now for each of these engine 'specs' seem to have changed yet again, with both 'versions' 0.5sec slower to 60. I had no idea which engine was a turbocharged version, and frankly why all the chopping and changing between engine specs. Any ideas which are which and what are they like? Very confused. :-(
|
|
How about a Lexus CT200H? Would fit in the same 'Smart' medium hatchback' category as a V40. Not the most exciting to drive, but really comfortable and rock solid mechanicals.
|
|
Indeed, or perhaps an Auris hybrid? As Catsdad's son (Cat, presumably) isn't a fast driver, it might suit him well.
But otherwise I agree - he should go for a V40 if that's what he feels happiest with. He should look at Cars for Sale on this site.
|
|
|
|
"When I looked at the V40 in petrol form (either a T2 or [preferably a] T3) earlier in the year, I got very confused at what car had what engine in it."
It's very confusing and all related to the sale of Volvo by Ford to Chinese firm Geely a few years back. The V40 is based on the Ford Focus and initially used the 1.6 Ecoboost motor in three specs 120PS, 150PS and 180PS plus a Volvo 5cyl in the T5 with 245PS. All are turbocharged and the 1600's are based on the original Yamaha designed Zetec-SE. Good engines and likely to give no trouble at all as long as you avoid the terrible Powershift automated manual box used in some examples.
Now here it gets complicated. Volvo brought out their own 2.0 turbocharged engine to replace these again with similar power outputs T2 122PS, T3 152PS and T5 250PS but the 1.5 is a downsized (but no less powerful) 1.6 Ecoboost from the Ford Focus which is used in conjunction with the Powershift gearbox and is thus best avoided.
For the budget we're talking about here it'll be the 1.6 motors he'll be looking at.
Proviso... Volvo specifications are hugely confusing so I could be wrong on details here.
Edited by SLO76 on 29/09/2017 at 20:59
|
Thanks for the latest comments, especiallly for the clarifications on the petrol engine options. I had seen various specs in ads and now I know why.
The Lexus suggestion is a good one that, rather surprisingly for me, my son is going to look further into. It turns out he is open to the idea of an auto, at least in a hybrid. There are a few around in his price range, including from main dealers.
|
Thanks for the latest comments, especiallly for the clarifications on the petrol engine options. I had seen various specs in ads and now I know why.
The Lexus suggestion is a good one that, rather surprisingly for me, my son is going to look further into. It turns out he is open to the idea of an auto, at least in a hybrid. There are a few around in his price range, including from main dealers.
Tell him to take a good long test drive before committing. They're very well made and utterly reliable but CVT gearboxes and hybrid powertrains do not a good combination make for the spirited driver. The ride is a bit firm too particularly on early models and on anything with bigger wheels.
Plus they're really only efficient in short local driving, on longer runs you're simply driving a petrol engined automatic with a heavy load of batteries and electric motors being hauled along with you. Remember also that batteries degrade over time and by 6-7yrs will be heavily down on capacity compared to new. These cost thousands to replace and thus dealers are wary of older hybrid motors and value them accordingly.
|
|
|
|
The CT200h is a lovely car. We had one for six years, it never put a foot wrong and we were very sorry to see it go. It is very different to a V40 though, very chalk and cheese I would say. The V40 is sporty looking and great fun to drive. The CT200h on the other hand is more understated and suited to a sedate style of driving due to its CVT gearbox. If that suits your son, buy it with your eyes shut and you won't go wrong.
|
|
Also a shame that the styling of the Lexus is not exactly great.
PS. regarding the V40, note that it doesn't have a foot rest for the left foot (even the updated version) - some people, including myself (and some other Backroomers), who has back problems, need such a decent size foot rest, especially on longer journeys. The seats in the V40 are very ergonomic and comfortable, but they've made, in my view a glaring mistake in leaving the foot rest out. Its not as though it doesn't have the space for one. Its the reason why I excluded it from my list of possible cars to buy ealier in the year (in the end I didn't change my car).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
