Types of engine: reliability etc.

[V40addict]

Which engine according to you is to be preferred when buying a used Volvo of the late 90's , early 2000's , and in particular among the S40/V40 series ?

Some random reading I have done gave me the impression, the S40/V40 series had less issues than some other popular Volvo models of the days, that's one other reason I like the V40. For example, the XC 90 had a lot of gearbox (auto) issues I read, and the same engine was used in other models (V70 ? not sure). The only issue I know of for the S40/V40 series is the automatic gearbox that can fail. Also turbos like all turbo engines. And the GDI Mitsubishi engine which is not recommended.

Regarding turbo models, I thought the 2 liter engine had a turbo (always) but apparently there is a 2.0 non turbo model (140hp vs 160hp for the turbo one). Is there a way to easily distinguish one from the other ? And how does this 2.0 L non turbo engine compare to the 1.8 L ? Are parts interchangeable between the 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0L ? Say you want to swap a gearbox, or cylinders ? The 1.6 and 1.8 L have a Renault gearbox I believe ...

As for the diesel engine in the S40/V40 series , how would you compare their reliability, cost of maintenance vs the petrol engines ? And their ability not to turn into "smokers" after x years of age ?

[ITSv40]

I only have experience of the 2.0 lt non turbo petrol. My p1 did 370,000mls and the engine was still good when scrapped. Only let me down once in all that time and that was a collapsed auxilary belt tensioner. So loved I replaced it with the P2 and that has now done 137,000mls and still good with no issues.

The p1 had a Renault gearbox, the p2 a Volvo box.

[emtor]

My only experience is the B4184S2 (2002 V40).
Had the car for 2 years. Noisy VVT-hub from the start. They tend to do that.
Low fuel consumption, no oil consumption, starts equally well in summer as in winter temps down to beyond -40C. -Fires after the first rev.
Only trouble was in -35C where it wouldn't idle. Had to give it some pedal to make it run.
Lasted just a few minutes. IACV must have gotten stuck due to the cold. Never happened since.
Same low temp one year later, the starter solenoid refused to engage. A tap with a hammer and it started. Never happened since.
All in all a reliable engine.

[martin93]

I would say all the engines on offer were pretty good, although yes I've heard the GDI can be temperamental so I would suggest avoiding that. I would also avoid the 1.6 as these are pretty slow and thirsty compared with the others. Diesel's were well proven Renault units which generally give no trouble. The P1's up to around 1999 did not have variable valve timing, so there were no issues with the VVT solenoid clicking.

The 1.6 and 1.8 Volvo engines were fitted with a Renault gearbox up to around 2003ish, and the 2.0 non turbo had the Renault box up until the P2 was introduced in around 2000. I think the 1.8i GDI had a Mitsubishi box (not sure on that), and the Diesel's were also Renault. The other gearbox fitted was a Volvo unit. Both of these boxes were good, but I personally would stick to a Renault box since these are mated to a solid flywheel, not a dual mass flywheel like the Volvo boxes were. This is speaking from a brief experience with a 2.0 non turbo phase 2, which decided to throw its flywheel away at just 90K. I then managed to buy my phase 1 back. Only issues with the Renault box are that the linkage bushes wear quickly leading to a sloppy gearchange, but this is an easy fix.

The biggest issues to watch out for on a S40 and V40 now is rust, now they are getting to that age. I've just welded all four corners of the sills on my 1998 P1 (it was so close to being taken away by the scrap man that I actually filled it with scrap), and under the back seats where the fuel tank sits. After having these sections cut out I can tell you (on the P1 at least) that these cars are not as well rust proofed as the bigger Volvo's. Rusty fuel and brake pipes are another common issue, the worst being the brake pipe which runs behind the fuel tank and down next to the fuel filter. I recon just about every one of these cars now have either had new pipes, or are going to need them very soon.

Don't let that put you off though. These are excellent cars, and I will certainly be running mine on for as long as possible. It's literally the only car I've owned which has never let me down. Even the air-con still works on mine, and I've never gassed it in my 5 years of ownership!

[V40addict]

Originally Posted by martin93

The 1.6 and 1.8 Volvo engines were fitted with a Renault gearbox up to around 2003ish, and the 2.0 non turbo had the Renault box up until the P2 was introduced in around 2000. I think the 1.8i GDI had a Mitsubishi box (not sure on that), and the Diesel's were also Renault. The other gearbox fitted was a Volvo unit. Both of these boxes were good, but I personally would stick to a Renault box since these are mated to a solid flywheel, not a dual mass flywheel like the Volvo boxes were. This is speaking from a brief experience with a 2.0 non turbo phase 2, which decided to throw its flywheel away at just 90K.

I am considering buying a 2.0 non turbo P2, it doesn't have the same Renault box as my 1.6L, if the 2.0 P1 (until 2000) had the Renault box does that mean the 2.0 P2 would also accept the gearbox of my 1.6L in case I need to swap ?



Regarding the flywheel failure, what does that mean mechanically and cost wise (assuming you need to go to a repairshop )?

[martin93]

Originally Posted by V40addict

I am considering buying a 2.0 non turbo P2, it doesn't have the same Renault box as my 1.6L, if the 2.0 P1 (until 2000) had the Renault box does that mean the 2.0 P2 would also accept the gearbox of my 1.6L in case I need to swap ?



Regarding the flywheel failure, what does that mean mechanically and cost wise (assuming you need to go to a repairshop )?

I don't think it would. Firstly, the P1 1.6 and 2.0 had different gear ratios (I think the box in the 1.6 was called the M3P while the 2.0 was an M5P), and secondly the Volvo box is cable operated not rod operated, so it would necessitate changing the gear selector mechanism as well. You'd also have to swap the flywheel.

The dual mass flywheel is basically a two piece flywheel designed to damp vibrations. Very good idea on a diesel, pretty pointless on a petrol. And my short lived P2 2.0 non turbo failed at around 90K miles. Symptoms being vibration coming through the car and a knocking sound which changes or disappears when you push the clutch down. The flywheel costs around £250 to buy in the first place and of course means taking the gearbox out to get to it, so a lot of labour costs involved. Then you should really replace the clutch and slave cylinder while you're in there, so another £400ish on top of that.... That's another thing. On the Volvo box, the release bearing and slave cylinder are all one unit mounted in the bell housing, whereas the Renault has the separate type on the outside of the box. So if you need to replace the Slave cylinder on a Volvo box, it's gearbox out. All in all you'd be looking at well over £1k to change the flywheel and clutch at a garage. A clutch for the Volvo box seems to be a lot more expensive too..

[emtor]

Originally Posted by V40addict

The only issue I know of for the S40/V40 series is the automatic gearbox that can fail.

If I'm not mistaken these are Aisin Warner boxes. Aisin usually know how to make these but all Volvo models seem to have problems with their autoboxes.
There is one thing that kills these and that is ATF that gets too hot over time.
As far as I know you can install an additional cooling radiator too keep the fluid cool.
What usually happens is that the owner never changes the fluid and drives around with a caravan behind it all summer never bothering to shift down before driving up long and steep hills. ATF circulates too slow, gets hot and brakes down and the box is not lubricated properly.

[CopthorneMike]

I own a 2003 V40 with the GDI engine.

I do see quite a few comments that GDI engines are 'problematic and to be avoided' but to be honest never had any problems with mine. Runs very well, fuel and oil consumption pretty good in my opinion for what is now a 15 year old model which has done over 200K miles.

Only problems I experienced occurred when the battery had been disconnected for a period (flat battery on one occasion) when the engine 'relearning' caused problems for a day or so (however I believe this is an issue with other S40 / V40 models from the same era.

I would be interested to hear if anyone who has actually owned a GDI engine experienced problems, or if this is simply based upon 'I hear from others' type anecdotes!

[emtor]

The complaint on the GDI is carbon build-up if I'm not mistaken.
I've read somewhere that direct injected engines often have this problem if driven at low revs and mostly short trips.

[clarkey1984]

I had the 2.0 non turbo (136bhp) and covered about 50 thousand miles in the few years I had it, nothing major other than regular wear and tear, maximum mileage for a pretty minimal outlay really when you consider I bought the car with 8 months MOT on for £400, then sold it for £425 several years later with nearly 190k on the clock and 19 years of age, i did however do quite a lot of modifications to the car which weren't necessary, I just wanted to be different.

I now have the 2.0 (high pressure turbo) t4 which are 200bhp as standard, mines more like 240, goes like a total beast, is 16 years old, has covered 175k and shows no signs of expiring any time soon, fine cars.