Thinking of getting an s40 1.6 diesel.

[AdyB]

Hi everyone.

My parents are looking at getting a 2011 s40 1.6 diesel, they are looking for advice on what too look out for while viewing, common faults, which is the best to buy etc.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Cheers
Adrian.

[iainmd]

Do they do a decent mileage and regularly do some longer trips (not just short trips around town)? If so, consider it. If not, go petrol or a car without a wet DPF.

Also, being a 2011, is it a 1.6D or a D2 (which is still a 1.6D engine but different)?

[Ringo]

Hi Adyb, from what I've heard about them, your parents may be better off with a 2.0 Diesel. The Manager at the workshop I use bought a 1.6 diesel & is not happy with it as it's underpowered & needs to be used hard to motor along (his words). Personally, I've got the 2.0d ,(54 plate 113k on clock,52k when I bought it) and am very pleased with it. It goes well ,hasn't used a drop of oil,is reasonable on service costs(not main stealer) & never drops below 42mpg !! The bodywork is the same on both models as well. Hope this helps,Ringo.

[AdyB]

Hi

Thanks for the replies, I should have mentioned they mostly do small journeys, averaging mostly 3-4k a year, is the s40 easy to home service, I have mentioned about the petrol models but they are stuck on having a diesel.

Cheers
Adrian

[iainmd]

In that case avoid the 1.6D (16v) like the plague. The DPF will never regenerate and DPF issues are probably inevitable. The MPG is also severely disappointing. We get 45mpg average and we do mainly decent runs on A-roads and motorways. The 2.0D does the same mpg with more power and no wet DPF.

The 1.6D DPF requires a fluid top up every 3rd service adding about £250 to the service cost at Volvo and every 6th service requires the DPF to be changed (currently over £1,100 at Volvo dealers). On the surface the 1.6D seems cheap to run, in reality it certainly isn't.

If they are dead set on an S40 diesel go with the 2.0D. It's cheaper to service, better to drive, same real world mpg and cheaper to service. Alternatively the later D2 (1.6 8v) may be an option.

[volvorocks]

We had an s40 1.6d with what I now know to be with a dpf that used the additive. The 3 year service was very expensive at over £600, which included an MOT, although as it was mint and being part exed, the cost of the service was more or less added onto the px price to sweeten the deal for the new car. MPG was 'ok' at around 42, although way way short of official, and as others have suggested,expensive servicing and necessary replacements of various items make it expensive in the long run - an expense that would need the thing to do about 100mpg to recoup...!!!

Regards

[julianps]

In that case avoid the 1.6D (16v) like the plague. The DPF will never regenerate and DPF issues are probably inevitable. The MPG is also severely disappointing. We get 45mpg average and we do mainly decent runs on A-roads and motorways. The 2.0D does the same mpg with more power and no wet DPF.

The 1.6D DPF requires a fluid top up every 3rd service adding about £250 to the service cost at Volvo and every 6th service requires the DPF to be changed (currently over £1,100 at Volvo dealers). On the surface the 1.6D seems cheap to run, in reality it certainly isn't.

If they are dead set on an S40 diesel go with the 2.0D. It's cheaper to service, better to drive, same real world mpg and cheaper to service. Alternatively the later D2 (1.6 8v) may be an option.

MY2011 is almost certainly a D2; these cars run "dry" DPF but require timing belt replacements more frequently. At main dealer prices they cost about £1,000 less in servicing over over 12 years/150,000 miles. D2 has an 8v engine with more torque than the 1.6D but it's somehow less useable and needs a 6-speed gearbox and regular changes to keep it in the sweet-spot all the time.

Look on the Honest John website for the Good/Bad and only buy a car with a verifiable service history.

[Djgregory]

Hi

Thanks for the replies, I should have mentioned they mostly do small journeys, averaging mostly 3-4k a year, is the s40 easy to home service, I have mentioned about the petrol models but they are stuck on having a diesel.

Cheers
Adrian

Why do people buy diesels when they do this sort of mileage.

Depending on the type of driving you do unless your doing over 15k a year then you will be a lot worse off buying a diesel.

[Ninja59]

MY2011 is almost certainly a D2; these cars run "dry" DPF but require timing belt replacements more frequently. At main dealer prices they cost about £1,000 less in servicing over over 12 years/150,000 miles. D2 has an 8v engine with more torque than the 1.6D but it's somehow less useable and needs a 6-speed gearbox and regular changes to keep it in the sweet-spot all the time.

Look on the Honest John website for the Good/Bad and only buy a car with a verifiable service history.

The change of head means there was less low end torque to get the car going initially, to compensate they increased the turbo pressure it does mean initially that you need to keep the revs within the most efficient zone of the turbo.

[kebab10]

In a word, DON'T. Bigger is best and with the sort of mileage, petrol would be best.

[AdyB]

Thank you all for the advice.

It`s seems that the word petrol is a dirty word, I have relayed the info over to them they are test driving a 2.0d tomorrow I think I have steered them in the right direction, fingers crossed..

All the best
Adrian

[julianps]

In a word, DON'T. Bigger is best and with the sort of mileage, petrol would be best.

I agree; experience has taught me if you go Volvo+petrol got for power, if Volvo+diesel go for economy. These seem to the the marque's sweet-points.

My 1.6D is my sixth Volvo in succession and despite my initial concern about the "small" engine I'm really enjoying the car and with cameras and coppers everywhere don't miss the va-va-doom!

[7050man]

Hi Adyb, as has been said, for the mileage you mention, don't buy any diesel. Especially if it has a DPF.
Go for a petrol instead.
That includes 1.6 and all but the earliest 2.0D which didn't have a DPF, but these did have a few bugs so perhaps not worth looking at as well.

The 1.6 16v does not of course have the power of the 2.0D but it is more than adequate in my view and will cruise at 70mph fully loaded with 4 people and luggage. The newer 8v 1.6 (D2) does feel a little more torquey but the early ones needed a few software upgrades before they got the economy sorted.

In my view the 1.6 is better than the 2.0D. I've had both. It's smoother and is much better on the fuel. In 110k miles on the 2.0D I averaged about 54mpg. My current 1.6 is averaging 67mpg and will easily do over 75 if driven under the correct conditions.
YOu will not get anywhere near this if driven mainly around town, probably late 40's if you are lucky.

Finally, the 16v 1.6 (not D2) will require additive top up at 37k miles and DPF replacement at 75K. Expensive, so be warned. This will apply to 2.0D, unless it's an auto, which had the newer DPF (described here as dry).

Good luck with your choice, whatever it is.

[Ninja59]

Hi Adyb, as has been said, for the mileage you mention, don't buy any diesel. Especially if it has a DPF.
Go for a petrol instead.
That includes 1.6 and all but the earliest 2.0D which didn't have a DPF, but these did have a few bugs so perhaps not worth looking at as well.

The 1.6 16v does not of course have the power of the 2.0D but it is more than adequate in my view and will cruise at 70mph fully loaded with 4 people and luggage. The newer 8v 1.6 (D2) does feel a little more torquey but the early ones needed a few software upgrades before they got the economy sorted.

In my view the 1.6 is better than the 2.0D. I've had both. It's smoother and is much better on the fuel. In 110k miles on the 2.0D I averaged about 54mpg. My current 1.6 is averaging 67mpg and will easily do over 75 if driven under the correct conditions.
YOu will not get anywhere near this if driven mainly around town, probably late 40's if you are lucky.

Finally, the 16v 1.6 (not D2) will require additive top up at 37k miles and DPF replacement at 75K. Expensive, so be warned. This will apply to 2.0D, unless it's an auto, which had the newer DPF (described here as dry).

Good luck with your choice, whatever it is.

2009 2.0D's (manual) in certain cases did not have a DPF....mine was a 2009 with no DPF it was only in the middle lifetime of the car in the P1 platform did it get a DPF then they removed it again before Euro V kicked in and put it back in when required but the engine was going then pretty much anyway.