Potential s40 buyer - advice please

[T5R92011]

Originally Posted by Sts40

Bought my S40 recently... previously had Volvos S80, S40 T5 and an S40 1.6 petrol.

Mine is the 1.6 diesel DRIVe. I did a lot of research and in hindsight for the diesel should have got the Volvo 5 cylinder diesel.:

Honestly, I can't rave enough about the Volvo 5/6 cylinder engines (or even the old 4 cylinder engines). They just seem so substantial in design. I recall one of the experienced members here (Clan) saying that Volvo's 3.0-litre 305bhp Turbo engine 'doesn't really have any issues'. Now compare that to the BMW 3.0-litre turbo engine and it has a whole article dedicated to the 8 most common issues it suffers:
The 8 Most Common BMW N54 Engine Problems – Common Failures and Performance Issues

Volvo just seem to have a different ethos when it comes to engine reliability. My S40 T5 has over 150,000 miles on it, and it fires up immediately and basically sounds brand new. Same with my S60 2.0T before that. The engines just seem to come from a time where cost cutting wasn't really a thing. Sure the MPG is hideous, but the reliability justifies the awful MPG.

I also find it extremely intriguing how (in the era of mass downsizing) Volvo threw away the 120bhp Ford 1.6-litre ecoboost engine used in the V40 hatchback (branded 'T2') and replaced it with their own 2.0-litre turbo engine, that produces just 122bhp.
That's a 2.0-litre turbocharged petrol engine, that produces 122bhp. For comparison, Ford's 1.0-litre ecoboost produces 140bhp.

Volvo can be so wierd at times...but needless to say I would expect that 2.0-litre turbo to last 30 years given the astonishingly low power output.

[iainmd]

Originally Posted by Elninio1999

Assuming decent maintenance has been carried out, what sort of mileage are the petrols good for before you venture into unknown and gambling territory? I'd expect the diesel would run far further but that's probably not a factor after purchase for me. More a case of what mileage a should I be avoiding at purchase stage.

I'm 90% sure that the 1.8 and 2.0 4cyl petrols are Mazda derived units and a chain driven so are likely to last for a pretty brave milage.

[T5R92011]

Originally Posted by iainmd

I'm 90% sure that the 1.8 and 2.0 4cyl petrols are Mazda derived units and a chain driven so are likely to last for a pretty brave milage.

Yeah they are Mazda design borrowed by Ford.

They are the cheapest engines to run in these cars because as Iainmd says, there is no timing belt to change. They have thick timing chain that should last the life of the vehicle, and everything else e.g oil filter, sparkplugs are very easy to access.

[Welton]

Originally Posted by T5R92011

Honestly, I can't rave enough about the Volvo 5/6 cylinder engines

To be fair, the Engine and Getrag M66 gearbox in my car have been utterly faultless, in fact that's the reason I've kept the car for far longer than anything else I've owned, there's never any 'Check Engine' lights on the dash and as T5R says my 15 year old engine still sounds new.

To me; having a 2005 car for so long has now become a bit of a adventure and I'm enjoying the almost 'free' motoring and still being able to out accelerate new German Diesel saloons.......quite amusing.

[Sts40]

My understanding is the 1.6d is fairly reliable if it’s looked after... correct oil, servicing and kept clean, it’s the wet DPF that’s the biggest issue... after 92k miles now the car starts and runs sweet... just don’t understand why such an underpowered car 1.6d was doing 50mpg?! But with the remap it’s so much nicer to drive... pulls lovely now..

With all the different components you don’t quite know what your getting these days...

My old s80 2.4 petrol had a Renault gearbox My partner’s car, Infiniti Q30 is a perky combination of Merc GLA, Merc A class, Nissan and Renault 1.5 d engine and box.