I'm currently in the process of getting a new (used) car and I've pretty much narrowed my options, based on price, performance, reliability and looks down to a Volvo S40. It will either be a 2.0T or a T4, which has to be newer than 2000.
What I need to know is, in real life terms, is there a big difference in performance between the 2.0T and the T4?
I'm moving from an 1.6 Alfa 145 by the way, so it's going to be a fairly hefty step up!
|
The 2.0T is a light pressure turbo, so no full on power spurt, just a pleasant slug of torque through the rev range. The T4 is a much more power on, speed machine, whose power delivery is not linear and was slated by the car mags when launched.
Depends on your driving I suppose. I would go for a 2.0T rather than a T4, unless the availability of the T4 was better.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
There's not a huge difference in availability. The prices aren't *that* much different either, surprisingly.
I suppose it'll just be a matter of driving the two and seeing how they compare.
I did consider a Saab 9-5 2.3T and an Audi A4 1.8T, but the Saab is too big and slow, whereas the Audi is too expensive (for the age).
|
I haven't driven a S40 T4, but I have driven a V70 T5 which suffered from horrendous torque-steer problems, to which the traction control's only solution was to cut the power.
I would test-drive any 200bhp+ fwd turbo car around several wet roundabouts before buying!
|
New plans (kind of).
I drove a couple of S40's today, one T4, which was quick, but the oil pressure light was ticking at low revs, dealer said he'd get it sorted, but I'm not keen.
The other was a 53 plate 1.9 D (115bhp). Is this a decent diesel engine, or is it a bit rough, uneconomical and gutless?
|
The S40 is cheap for a reason. It's not a proper Volvo, it's a Mitsubishi Carisma with a Volvo badge, built by the same people.
Buy a proper Volvo or buy something else, in my opinion.
|
To quote HJ...
"Top in class for secondary safety in NCAP crash tests."
"Always had three three-point rear belts.
"Plenty of places to store oddments inside."
"Low 3 out of 9 point death rate from accidents in this model."
"99% breakdown free in 2003 Which survey."
"Rated one of the cheapest 'large' cars cars to run in 2003 Which survey."
"V40 and S40 4th and 5th most reliable car in 2005 Warranty Direct Reliability Survey with 12 and 13 repair claims per 100 cars."
|
Fairly sure the 1.9D was a Renault unit. Came in two power outputs, 115bhp the higher. They were reasonable lumps, low 40s fuel economy but not particularly quick. Probably ticks your reliability box though - provided it has been serviced regularly. Every 6000 or so miles?
|
My dad's got a Scenic with the 1.9 Dti engine, absolutely unburstable, pulls great even when loaded up and decent on fuel. Currently on 125k with only routine servicing.
|
|
|
The S40 is cheap for a reason. It's not a proper Volvo, it's a Mitsubishi Carisma with a Volvo badge, built by the same people.
Not quite. Wasn't it a joint venture project, built at a joint venture factory?
I haven't driven the saloon, but I've covered a lot of miles in a V40 estate. It's a bit cramped in the rear seats, and the boot on the estates is surprisingly small, but I find it a surprisingly nice car in many ways: quiet, good visibility, comfortable ride except on urban potholes, and reassuringly straightforward to drive. The front seats are a very nice place to be.
I'd say make up your own mind on whether you like it, and don't be too snobbish about whether it's somehow a "pure" Volvo.
|
Well, I've driven two 115 bhp 2003 1.9D S40's now and I liked the way they drove.
I'm not bothered about whether it's a pure Volvo or not, I just want a car with decent performance, good reliability, well built and comfortable. It's got to look good too, which the Sport versions which I have tested, do.
The search is on...
|
|
|
|