new ford focus,or s40 mark 3?

[4 forty]

how very much like the new s40 is the new ford focus launched today,so much so, i wonder if its made in the same factory.

paul

[clodhopper]

i believe they share the same floor pan

[doumac]

it is with profound sadness that i witness the transition from a volvo to a ford. i had hoped that ford would provide the investment and leave the car building to people who were actually capable of doing it.

saab have already been completely destroyed by GM company. Car magazine reported that any person buying the H.O.T. convertible 9-3 had a death wish because the prehistoric cavalier chassis was putting you into the first farmers field.

however, now saabs are winning awards and huge recognition for the same cars. is it a case of corporate money talking or genuine car journalism.

let us pray that a few years down the line we are not members of the rebadged ford owners club.

[5lab]

in all fairness, none of volvos previous small cars have actually been very good - now dont get me wrong, i currently own a 360, a 440 was the first car i drove and my fathers v40 is very plush, but according to pretty much all reviews, they were not up to the standard of other cars of the era. sharing a chassis with another car which is known to have good handling is simply a good idea.

besides - past volvos weren't exactly 'volvo' - the 340 was based on a daf, the 400 was powered by renault and the s/v40 (old style) was a mitsubishi underneath! big volvos have oft been powered by different companies (psa and audi spring immediately to mind)

surely borrowing a chassis from another car simply allows volvo to spend more money on making their cars good?

as for the new s40, it has a smashing stereo, and great seats. the focus doesnt. i'd also personally say that it looks better, and will probably hold its value a bit better (lets face it, the focus is never going to be hard-to-come-by)

[Mav_UK]

I'd disagree with the coment on the old small volvos.

I have to admit I have no idea about the 3 as I've never been in one, but...

I had a phase II 440 1.8 and it was great. Comfortable, quite and refined - a little slow but it wasn't a sports car.

I now have a V40 2.0T and it flies. And it does go around corners, with huge amounts of feedback, without losing any of the comfort. Makes you wonder what planet the journalists are on when they do the reviews.

As for the new ones, they look quite good and I've heard good things about ride and performance (from the bigger engines) but I have heard lots of complaints about space. Looking into the boot of a V50 I can see why - it looks smaller than my V40 (and the car is shorter IIRC)

I'd go for the Volvo over the ford - but I don't think you'd be dissapointed with either...

Stu

[doumac]

many of us have ideas based on experience, but unfortunately many must trust to the car press.

have you actually read some of that drivel. picture yourself new to cars and picking up a copy of What Car, what a heady mixture of garbage you will read.

you will find out that if personal safety is your priority then avoid a volvo. you will be much safer in a ford focus, renault megane, or clio. in fact an S60 is only as safe as a toyota yaris; confused, you will be.

perhaps a copy of motoring which is more your scene. avoid a volvo because they are not reliable, the only car to own is a hyundai?????.

in 1991 i had a sudden rush of blood and decided to get a new car. according to every magazine on the planet the peugeot 405 was the class leader by a mile, so i bought one. imagine my dismay when within a few weeks the sunroof leaked, then completely packed in, the remote central locking worked for 2 days, the stereo ate tapes, all four door hinges packed in buckling my front wings and doors, the engine wouldn't start when hot, and if left for a couple of days wouldn't start when cold either. a few months later the entire back end failed (£800), which peugeot told me would happen. these are the good points about the car. the new 407 is lying dismantled in peugeot garages all over britain and even french peugeot engineers are baffled. tell me, have any of you read that anywhere, or have the car press told you how wonderful it is and to go and buy one.

come on everybody, we are supposed to know better, that's why we drive volvos.

[tonyflynn1]

I got back from a business trip to the US today having spent the week with a Ford crown victoria, an enormous, v8 powered stoneage shed of a car, I can't believe they still build it and there's nothing good about it. My last trip was in October, that time I got a Lincoln LS, an outstanding v8 powered midsized saloon as good as any european car. When Ford don't try they are mediocre but when they set their mind to it they are probably the most innovative volume car maker in the world today. The lincoln was excellent, the Mondeo is excellent and the focus is outstanding. They rescued Jaguar and Aston Martin who now build better cars than they ever did and I for one reckon that Volvo is in safe hands.

[doumac]

excellent and outstanding are words that could never be associated with ford motor company. i speak from experience having owned a few and found them to be attrociously built, unreliable, ugly, depreciate like a brick over a cliff and have shown that engineering matters not when you are good at marketing.

as for saving jaguar who would want to pay over 25k for a rebadged mondeo.

[Hobo]

Hope they keep Volvo as a separate brand for years to come - sure they will. I'm not overly concerned about sharing vehicle floorpans, engines and componentry, helps keep cost down.

Volkswagen Group have done a good job with their Skoda, Seat, Audi and VW range and their is a fair amount of 'overlap' in vehicles there.

[IanGEC]

I've never driven a modern Aston or Jag. I have driven the Focus - had a 2.0 Ghia Estate as a company car when they first came out and apart from a couple of rattles from exhaust pipe brackets it was a fine car with exceptional handling - as for the looks well - each to our own - most of us drive Volvo's for goodness sake!

It has to be said I could not get to grips with ford's method of traction control which seemed to be cut the fuel to the engine to reduce power rather than transferring power to the wheel that does have traction - just what you need when excellerating out of a potentially tricky situation not of your own making.....

IanGEC

940 Highlander

[5lab]

thats what all traction control does. your thinking of a limited slip (or some other kinda trick) diff to do that.

plenty of people are more then willing to pay for a 'rebadged mondeo' - so what if they are based on the same floor plan? the TT (costing well over £30k in some cases) uses the same floorplan as a £10k skoda, and that doesnt do anyone any harm

[doumac]

there are no similarities to draw between the audi and ford situations. audi is a prestige manufacturer throwing a lifeline to a lesser marque. an audi is a superb car and apart from niggling front suspension problems must be classed as one of the most finely engineered and constructed cars on the road.

allowing companies like skoda and seat to use their drive trains is a life saver for these companies and allows us to buy a well engineered car at a reasonable price. however, mechanic friends inform me that under the skin there is still a big difference between an audi and a skoda.

the ford situation is very different in that this is a lesser marque taking over a prestige one. what was ford's equivelant to an XJS or the sublime Aston 5.3 V8. of course there wasn't one, because ford had never reached this level of engineering excellence. how on earth then can adding the components of a lesser marque improve a prestige car, it can't.

anyone remember when citroen took over maserati. the khamsin, a 174mph supercar, with citroen power steering. the only people to benefit from that marriage were the undertakers.

i own an 850R that still runs like a swiss watch, with 168K on it. i would be very interested to hear which particular ford part could improve my car.

[5lab]

sorry, but how on earth is volkswagen taking over audi NOT like ford taking over volvo?? and do you not remember the gt40? one of the finest racecars ever? i would personally put that down as 'engineering excellance'

[doumac]

>sorry, but how on earth is volkswagen taking over audi NOT
>like ford taking over volvo??

because volkswagen can build a car and their both german.


and do you not remember the
>gt40? one of the finest racecars ever? i would personally put
>that down as 'engineering excellance'

yes that was a piece of engineering excellance.

can you buy one?
have you seen one?
have you driven one?

i am talking about cars that you and i can own and drive, not a one-off megabucks beast like the gt40.

[5lab]

i cirtainly cant own OR drive an aston v8..

incidentally, both jag and aston are also owned by ford - whats to say we wont get an aston-tweaked volvo some point in the future, or parts from an xj8? both of these would be from a better 'pedigree' than a volvo part.

[doumac]

you are not answering the arguments i am making but instead selecting small parts that you feel are easier to attack.

i enjoy a good debate and am not attempting to belittle your viewpoints in any way. i agreed with your comment about the excellence of the gt40. are you agreeing with any of my points.

i must ask the question again, which ford part could improve my 850R.

[Hobo]

Perhaps there aren't any?

Perhaps Volvo could not realistically have expected to continue manufacturing and selling high quality vehicles (such as your 850R) at a reasonable price considering their annual production volumes.

I like the idea of component sharing to keep cost down. I think the Audi TT - Skoda (Octavia?) floorpan comparison is a good example.

[doumac]

anything that keeps costs down is good as long as it does not compromise quality and reliability.

volvo prices have been in the past quite scary, hence the rarity of many upmarket volvos.

but would we feel any of those benefits from cheaper ford bits reducing the quality of our marque.

look to BMW who take the **** with the british market, we represent 5% of their sales, but 50% of their profit. massive price hiking, so why would other manufacturers not jump on the gravy train. we seem to be doormats when it comes to that sort of thing.

[5lab]

perhaps the mondeo v6? i've not personally driven one (or an 850r for that matter), however it can be put to great uses (see nobel)

there are also plenty of parts which aren't better, but aren't worse, and probably are cheaper..

[Mav_UK]

Actually as much as I love the GT40, it's gone way down in my admiration since I saw a program with some of it's history. They were saying it was there top racer ever - but...

Even though ford through huge amounts of cash at it it still failed in it's first attempts to win LeMans (Lasted only three hours).

After a few years of total failure they called on Carol Shelby who did what he does best through bigger and bigger engines at it until it won.

How is that enginering excelence? The small engined Ferraris (sp?) were the engineering excelence, the GT40 was just Cubic Inches.

As for VW build quality (or Audi, or Merc) check out the owner surveys - it's a falicy. Quite a few colleagus have had Golfs in various forms (A3, TT, Golf and Leon - and telling the TT driver he drove a Golf was fun) and they all fell apart within a couple of years - but even as they were holding the seat handle in their hand that had just fell off for the 3rd time they were still claiming best build quality over my Volvo that was still in one peice and only needed consumables over the time I owned it...

Ford buying Volvo I think is going to be a good thing. The focus has one of the best floorpans for car size so the V50 and S40 should handle well, and they have the cash to throw at investment. Only time will tell if they are going to kill the mark - but I'm impressed so far.

Stu

[5lab]

agreed. the floorplan is ALSO the basis of the new C30 and (apparently) the new c70 as well.. thats quite a lot of cars with little development cost.

[doumac]

last night i was watching fifth gear on the telly and they did a piece on a british military vehicle builder who i believe are called kusho. yes that bit was boring but one little pearl emerged. they are building the entire drivetrain for the new gt40.

it would appear that a feat of engineering by ford must be contracted out.

i wonder if ford will manufacture the bonnet badge, or will that be contracted out also.

[enrm6]

>it would appear that a feat of engineering by ford must be
>contracted out.

It is a sign of the times for most car manufacturers. Until recently the core business of the the major car producers has been manufacturing. However recent developments have seen a shift towards being car suppliers and supporters. So efforts have gone into the infrastructure, dealerships and the like, and design and manufacturing contracted out to suppliers. Manufacturing companies have always used suppliers and the trend is that the suppliers are moving up in the chain, from just making components to making assemblies to having both design and production control of significant parts of a whole car program. This is not a bad thing if done properly.

On the Volvo Ford front though I think you are doing Ford a disservice. Ford do make some perfectly resectable cars both the Focus and Mondeo have been widely applauded for what they do. Ford engineering is actually very good. It depends on how you define engineering, it could easily be argued that the engineering at places like Aston Martin was absolutley awful compared to Ford. Don't equate low volume, hand built exclusivity with good engineering.

[doumac]

it reverts back to the old argument about a lesser marque getting involved with a superior one.

the history of success and failure is there for all to see.

how was volvo's partnership with the lesser renault engineering.

how did citroen's takeover of maserati work out.

how is vauxhall's takeover of saab working out.


the list goes on but as i pointed out in an earlier post historically it only works out when the superior marque takes over the lesser one.

[Mav_UK]

What was wrong with Volvo's partnership with Renault? I drove a renault powered 1.8 440 (brought from my father in law) nad it was great, a little slow maybe, but comfortable, quiet and smooth.

Mechanics I spoke to had this to say about the engine: It's designed badley, basically built badley, *but works for ever*. What more do you want from the engine? An engine that's superbly designed, well built and goes back to the garage constantly like my colleagues A3? When I got rid of it at more than 100000 miles it used very little petrol at a constant 85mph, and only needed consumables to keep it on the road. Wonderful car.

My current car is the V40 2.0T. Know I don't know if it's the same engine or not, but Renault have a 2.0T Laguna that has the same hp / torque figures. If it the same engine then it's currently on 185000km's, gives 34 mpg at 85/90mph and goes very, very fast. Also requires consumables to keep it on the road.

The old 260's also used a Renault 3L V6. Great engine for it's time. The only problem I have is that Renault sell parts for the engine at a fraction of what Volvo sell them for (or did 15 years ago). A friend of the family brought one that needed some bits. Got the car cheap because of the Volvo cost of repair, went to Renault and got he parts dirt cheap and got a great car for not a lot of cash...

Renault power, with Volvo safety seems a good combination to me.

I've driven a post GM 93 HOT as well. Bit boring to drive, and certainly not a track car. But goes well on the motorway (much like the turbo Volvos in fact) and is very comfortable. As for people crashing at the hands of the dreadful handling, they should learn to drive better. I was jumping out of a race prepped Spitfire into the Saab every couple of days and never once tried to drive the Saab like it was the Spitfire only to find the car embedded in a tree. I drove it like a Saab and enjoyed the comfort.

As I said before I think only time will tell what the impact is, but so far so good.

Aston have started making cars that don't require your own personal mechanic to following you around in order to keep on the road, Jags have stopped falling apart and both brands still seem to be the companies they were before the take over. Two successes for Ford I think.

Stu

[Hobo]

Hopefully Ford will be good for Volvo long term. I think Volvo can benenfit from the economies of scale and purchasing power that Ford have. Ford are extremley fussy about the quality of components bought in from their suppliers.

If for some reason your product does not meet their very demanding standards you must show what is being done to correct the immediate problem and prove how the short-coming will not occur again. Prior to becoming a supplier you must show how you have investigated possible causes of failure of your product and taken action at the design and manufacturing stages to ensure that the problem can not occur. Ford will stop purchasing product until they are completely satisifed with the quality of components, this is the incentive to get it right.

I think the Volvo/Renault partnership was good in it's time. Like Ford, Renault have extremley stringent targets for their suppliers to meet. Renault place extreme operational specifications on their parts. For some years I was involved in commercial vehicle instrumentation and worked for a company who supplied both Ford and Renault. The environmental test specifications were incredible, covering extremes of vibration, temperature, humidity and dust ingress. Life endurance testing, electrical testing etc proves to me that these companies are commited to building quality vehicles.

It works both ways as well. Ford have increased their customer base by buying themselves into sectors of the market that their existing vehicle range did not compete in.

Good luck to them.

[doumac]

all these exacting standards in the motor trade is good news for us consumers and hopefully we can all expect more reliable cars in the future.

however, companies like volvo and saab, should be masters of their own destinies. these companies were peculiar in that even people that had never owned or even driven one, if asked about mechanical longevity, would always mentions one of the swedish manufacturers.

is volvo going to lose this like saab just have (vauxhall engines) or are they still going to maintain a reputation for huge mileages.

jaguars now have ford engines so what is to prevent the same happening with volvo.

hopefully ford will recognise the outstanding achievement of many volvo engines and leave well alone.

p.s. if anyone says that a ford engine will last as long as a volvo engine i could never dignify that with a response, so i apologise in advance.

[tonyflynn1]

Simple really, the market will decide - to a degree it already has but no major manufacturer buys a brand to destroy it, quite the opposite in fact. Volvo will survive for all of the reasons that Ford bought it, it's a niche brand, the brand has a fair bit of kudos attached and has above average customer loyalty and most importantly, Ford is not GM.

[5lab]

believe it or not, in 2003 volvo was the only part of the ford group that was pushing a profit. doesnt sound like they're gonna change it much..

[enrm6]

>
>how did citroen's takeover of maserati work out.

But now they are owned by Fiat and doing alright.

>how is vauxhall's takeover of saab working out.

Vauxhall didn't take anyone over, General Motors did.

>the list goes on but as i pointed out in an earlier post
>historically it only works out when the superior marque takes
>over the lesser one.

Like Fiat taking over Ferarri, or VW taking over Lamborghini, or VW taking over Audi, or BMW taking over Rolls Royce, or VW taking over Bentley? All of these superior marque's as you put it have benefitted from being taken over by inferior marque's by producing better products. More importantly the relationships have probably saved a lot of these companies from either extinction or having to compromise on what they can do.

[doumac]

>>
>>how did citroen's takeover of maserati work out.
>
>But now they are owned by Fiat and doing alright.
>
fiat is the italian government and has helped all their supercar marques at one point or another.

>>how is vauxhall's takeover of saab working out.
>
>Vauxhall didn't take anyone over, General Motors did.

GM, vauxhall, same thing at least as far as differences to new saabs is concerned.
>
>>the list goes on but as i pointed out in an earlier post
>>historically it only works out when the superior marque
>takes
>>over the lesser one.
>
>Like Fiat taking over Ferarri, or VW taking over Lamborghini,
>or VW taking over Audi, or BMW taking over Rolls Royce, or VW
>taking over Bentley? All of these superior marque's as you
>put it have benefitted from being taken over by inferior
>marque's by producing better products. More importantly the
>relationships have probably saved a lot of these companies
>from either extinction or having to compromise on what they
>can do.

audi have simply lended a hand with improving build quality in lamborghini, an area of weakness in the past. the new lambos are getting rave reviews for the new improvements.

rolls royce and bentley were prehistoric leviathans destined for a certain extinction and with good reason. they had simply not moved with the times and nowadays people with bags of cash had simply more choice.

many years ago a drunk rich man offered me a drive of his new bentley twin turbo and thinking i was in for an experience of a lifetime i gladly accepted. i don't know if anyone among have had a go with one of these buses but talk about a disappointment. it couldn't hold the road, couldn't handle its own power, certainly couldn't stop in a hurry and rolled like a milk float on every corner. all this for 250k.

a service cost thousands of pounds because they stripped the engine every time to reinforce the myth of reliabilty.

someone had to take over these companies and drag them into a new century. some may say it's a pity it had to be germans.

[zygote]

>the list goes on but as i pointed out in an earlier post
>historically it only works out when the superior marque takes
>over the lesser one.

I think that's a little too general, but I agree to an extent.

Back in 2000 I worked for a company that dealt with logistics and Ford were one of our clients. On a business trip to the Ford plant in Cologne, Germany (the new Mondeo was being manufactured there in RHD prior to release) I got to spend a fair amount of time with one of the upper managers. During an evening session in one of the lovely open air bars, he hinted at length about a "baby jag" and suggested that, if successful, Ford would cease production of the Mondeo and move the baby jag into it's position as a fleet favourite.

Then the X-Type was released. x(

It looked like a Jag, true, but having spent upwards of 20K on what was supposed to be a Jaguar, how happy would you be with interior switchgear lifted straight out of the Mondeo, Mondeo speedo cluster and, at that price, having to option-in electric rear windows. It's not an argument of quality, more one of perception and Ford should have anticipated that. As it is, I feel that the X-Type is a bit of a fraud.

This is what happens when the "inferior" marque takes over the "superior" one and then takes control. I don't think this has happened with GM/Saab as, although the 93 has the Vectra chasis, it's been re-engineered by Saab. Inside, it's also still a Saab.

The X-Type could have been much, much better, but it is definately a Ford consumer level car with Jaguar branding, whereas the Saab is a Saab built with GM money.

Hopefully future Volvo's will still be engineered by "legacy" Volvo engineers, funded with Ford's readies.

P.S. I disagree with anyone saying the old Focus was a good car, everyone I know who's had one or driven one (me included) found them to be over-rated, hateful things with uncomfortable seats and a ridiculously over-designed interior. Sorry, just my 2p. :P

[5lab]

the x-type is generally realised as pretty good though, particularly in estate/diesel form..

i don't understand why companies tell the press that cars are built on the same chassis - surely it can only lead to discussions like this? still.. the new mondeo is also going to be built on the focus platform, which would hint to me that the next v70-size car (which, in all fairness, is pretty much mondeo size) might also be.

btw, did anyone in hear realise volvo are currently wroking with landrover (who are they owned by these days?) to develop the xc50, in conjunction with a freelander replacement..

[George Holmer]

This thread raises a great number of points and I may get a bit confused so do bear with me but here are a number of issues I would like to comment on, lets start with Saab and GM.

GM has totally destroyed Saab but there is a very good reason for this, Saab is making enormous losses and has for many, many years. Saab never managed to create a niche in the market in the same way that Volvo did. With the 145 and then even more with the 245, Volvo became _the_ maker of safe cars and of estate cars. Across the motorised world in the 70s, 80s and 90s, the Volvo estate was a concept and driving a Volvo estate was considered a status symbol in many markets. Volvo also designed cars that appealed to the US market and in the 80s, the US market became seriously important to Volvo, so important that they had very developed plans for a factory over there. Then, in the early 90s, Volvo hit again with the 850 estate which they ran in the BTCC and over night, the Volvo estate was not only safe, reliable and large, it was also fast. This was a stroke of genius. Across the Benelux countries, Scandinavia and the British Isles, police forces use Volvo estates, in Germany Volvos are used as taxis. Saab never, ever managed any of this. Their only iconic cars was the Saab 99 Turbo and the Saab 900 Convertible and neither ever made enough money for Saab to get anywhere. The marketing people at Saab simply do not have a clue. I think the GM people in Deitroit despair at those idiots in Trollhättan who cleary have no business sense or skill. In Gothenburg, the story is very different and Volvo is making bucket loads of money for Ford and a number of key Volvo managers are now in place in the Ford Motor Co, notably the head of the PAG in LA. The two stories are very different indeed and relate to the history of Sweden over centuries, too much to mention here. Quite simply, forget Saab, Saab is dead.

The other issue is that of Ford itself. I cannot see what is wrong with Ford, they make some great cars and always have. What is more, the Ford ethos is very similar to that of Volvo, it is making cars for the people. Do not ever forget that Volvo is a very schizophrenic brand, abroad on most markets it is considered a luxury car whereas in Sweden, it is a very ordinary car. The teenagers of Britain drives Saxos and Escorts and 205s, the youth of Sweden drive 240s and 740s. I for one think that Renault was an excellent partner for Volvo and so is Ford. In the case of Renault, what it was was the quest for a smaller car. In Sweden, Volvo dealers imported Renaults but this was limited to the Renault 5 and later the Renault 19. No large Renault cars were ever imported, you cannot find any 25s for example. The idea was that Volvo felt a need to offer smaller cars to maintain their market share as the oil price went up and the environment became an issue, this was the same reason Volvo bought Daf. Daf of course was alreay selling the 55 and the 66 with Renault engines. To this day, Volvo has failed in the small and medium size car segment of the market and reason for this again is simple, it is unknown territory for them. They do not know what is required. Also, Volvo management were very concerned that by introducing smaller Volvos, the brand link to reliability and safety would be jeopordized.

Why Ford then? When PG Gyllenhammar could not get the shareholders to agree to merge with Renault, he left and the remaining managers did go at it alone for a while but soon they too realized the need for co-operation, in partiuclar they were concerned when GM bought 50 % of Saab that Saab therefore would have a large injection of cash and Volvo would not. I for one think that the Ford ownership of Volvo has been a success but I am very sceptical of the way that Volvo is going, mainly because I think Volvo is losing sight of what made them famous and successful, the estate. A car like the S60 for example is great and good looking but they are trying to beat, mainly, BMW and MB at their own game. Forget it, you cannot. Volvo must remain true to their core values and maintain the idea of a car for the middle classes with children and dogs. I realise that a lot of you here might not like that idea but I believe that already with the 245 GLT and later the 745 Turbo, Volvo started a new trend in the car world, they made the estate cool. Jaguar in fact tried to build an XJ40 estate but they decided the market was too small, estates where still for window cleaners and carpenters. Today, an estate is the in thing. I totally agree with the XC90, a marvellous car and a fantastic piece of PR genious, it is outselling BMW and Mercedes in the US in the thousands. Why? Because it is something that Volvo understands and the Volvo brand works here. It just does not work when trying to compete even with the upper crust of the small and medium size car market. Maybe, just maybe, Volvo will be able to pull it off and the idea of a fast, cool Volvo competitor to the C class and 3-series will not seem so crazy in the future but this must never, as is the case at present, be at the expense of the classic Volvo, the large estate. The V70 simply is not the answer, it is nowhere near a modern version of the 945. Whose fault is this? I do not know but I suspect the answer is closer to the shores of the North Sea than to those of Lake Erie.

1995 Volvo 945 LPT Auto

[Mav_UK]

Failed in the medium car Market?

You can't move for V40's in Holland, and all owners I know are more than impressed and generally replace them with another V40.

And the V50 is already common place on the roads. I took my car in to get the plastic clip on the seat belt replaced (which they did completely free of charge) and they had 3 in the workshop being prepped for delivery, and another one being serviced.

I don't think this is a failure - even at the ridiculus Dutch prices for Volvo.

The resale values also reflect this. The garage estimated a trade in value of 5000gpb approx (7000euros) for a 7 year old V40 with nearly 200K km's on the clock.

As for reliability - top notch. At 180K km's I've had problems with a dead battery, replaced the pads and discs (rears replaced FOC as Volvo said they were wearing a little quicker than they would expect) at 150K (rear) and 165K (front). And it was the safest car in it's class when released.

It will probably be replaced with a late V40 T4 later this year if the predictions of the garage are correct...

I have to admit that the mkI 440 was a car I didn't like that much, but the MKII that I owned was also great, with good reliability.

Would I like a bigger Volvo - of course, but more for the space and extra power than reliability or saftey concerns.

Whilst I don't know the business part of Saab, I'll agree that the GM merger 93 was a Saab on the inside. Never driven an old one so I can't compare - but it was very fast, and beautiful on the motorway. Awfull on anything resembling a corner (went around but the body roll!), but I assumed it was like the V40 - a motorway cruiser not a boy racer.

Stu

[5lab]

i'd also disagree with the 'failed in the small car market' comment - they have, by all accounts, never made brilliant small cars (i have had 4 300s, currently drive a 400, and regularly drive my fathers 6-month-old v40 - i think they're great (except the 440's gearbox - ewwww) - the press dont seem to really like them and i'm guessing there is some reason for this - they are simply not as competitive as other marques (volvos were alwasy a bit more expensive than the equivilent ford - when my father brought a 440 it was the base model, and it was 2 grand more than the base escort).

however. they have sold well. the 300 sold more than 1.1 MILLION over its time, for about 5 years was the biggest selling volvo in this country, and even made it to number 9 in the 'top sellers' list in the uk. quite impressive in my humble opinion. maybe it is a sign of the times that last year, the limited-production xc90 outsold every other model?

[George Holmer]

The XC90 is making extreme amounts of money in a way that the 300 series and 400 never did. I agree, the 300 was a great car in many ways and did, just like the 200 and the 7/900 series, find a niche in the market and had its own appeal.

I am well aware of the fact that there are a great number of S40 and V40 sold, not the least here in the Benelux countries, but from an image and commercial point of view, they cannot be compared with the 7/900 series. Volvo management look at three markets when they consider where to go next: Sweden, the UK and the US; simple as that.

1995 Volvo 945 LPT Auto

[5lab]

>but from an image and commercial point of view, they cannot be
>compared with the 7/900 series.

what makes you say that? the v40 was voted the 'best looking estate car' for a couple of years running, something i strongly doubt the 700s ever did ;)

also, all of the 700 and 900 series, right up to the v90 (sold as late as 99) were based on a chassis designed in the mid-70s - thats shocking by todays standards (where the average floorplan or chassis has a life expectancy of ~5 years) - volvo just couldnt have carried on in that way..

[George Holmer]

No, you are missing the point. Of course Volvo could not continue to make and sell the 940 and I have not said that the V40 is an ugly car. The point is, the 940 defined its segment, the S40 and V50 does not.

1995 Volvo 945 LPT Auto

[Mav_UK]

OK.

I can agree with that - there is much more competition in the S40 segment than the 940 segment. Although I would say that the V40 is was *the* segments estate. Most 3 series beemers and A4's were sold as saloons (Okay the Audi hada fair few estates sold as well). The x40 (in Holland at least) sold mainly as estates.

I'd still say it was a commercial success.

Stu

[George Holmer]

Yes, this is in a way a good point. Volvo should have, and still can do, done everything to become "the" estate in each segment.

1995 Volvo 945 LPT Auto

[Alec Dawe]

We've had a Focus C-Max in the family for just under a year now, and when coming up to changing 'my' car, the Focus was the reason for going to the S40.
I love the C-Max, performance and fuel consumption, but the seats are no where as good as the S40's, and having had two major back operations in the last 3 years, the seats are a major factor to consided.
My thoughts on the S40.. fast enough, economical, (49mpg, about 3 mpg better than the C-Max) Excellent driving position for me at least, and my driving position is now rather odd, but everyone else says they can get comfortable, the heated seats are a wonderful luxury on a frosty morning. Luggage space, well we got my son back to university in it, his luggage, myself, my wife, and himself, need I say more!
Enough bells and whistles,boys toys, for anyone. Love the leather seats, and the lighter interior colour (Oyster Beige).
Might invest in an engine management 'add-on' chip, but it can still annoy BWM 3s away from roundabouts in as built tune!
Bits and pieces might be cheaper than the Saab I was running previously. Brake pads etc are the same Ferodo part number as the ones for the C-Max, so most suspension/brake/chassis bits will be easily available from the likes of Halfords etc. Engine bits from Ford. Tyres about £60 instead of £150 for the Saab (Saab had odd size too, no-one EVER had them in stock!, Handy if you got a puncture).
Gripes... headlamp dipped beam is AWFUL! Dim, and too short, abrupt cut off.
Finally.. Car probably saved my life over new year. Driving to Sheringham at 5.30am I thought that it was handling funny, seemed very light and jittery, (only doing 35mpg on a supposedly gritted main road A140 in Norwich) then realised it was trying to tell me that the gritters had stopped at midnight, but the frost hadn't. Road was like a skating rink, all the way to Cromer. Later reports of something like 16 accidents on a 20 mile stretch of road! Early warning + ABS Brakes + Traction Control probably saved me from being the 17th!
I like it so far!
Alec