Is the Volvo S40 1.6 worth considering?

Lemo

I'm thinking of getting an 03 S40. Most are 1.8 but I have also seen a 1.6? My 1.6 Laguna is underpowered so I'm wondering is the 1.6 S40 the same. Anyone driven one?

While I'm at it, 02 Lagunas seem to be selling for about €13K on cbg and carzone but a relation in the motor trade told me to expect about €9K for a trade-in. I was stunned at the difference. I know the dealer needs to make a few quid but this seems like a lot.

alias no.9

Lagunas are not good news in a trade in. If we're talking old model S40, it's got a renault engine, most likely the same as your laguna.

Lemo

I presume the 1.8 is also a Renault engine then and the new model probably has a Ford engine...

C_Breeze

it will be underpowered, no doubt about it.

the engine is just too small for the size and weight of that body.
ideally for those cars would be a 6cyl or a TDI unit

edit: sorry tought you said S60. Anyway the car will get you from A to B , but dont expect to to set the road on fire

maidhc

The S40 is based on the Mitsubishi Carisma, so a 1.6 shoud be alright.

Henry Ford III

1.6 petrol S40 is well underpowered imho.

They don't even sell it in some markets.

colm_mcm

you really neeed the 1.8 engine on the S40. even go for a Diesel, but avoid the 1.6

BrianD3

This is the old model S40 we're talking about right? I am just wondering why you are considering changing from a Laguna II to one of those. The Volvo is inferior in most areas which is no surpirse seeing as its a much older design.

bazz26

Lemo wrote:

I'm thinking of getting an 03 S40. Most are 1.8 but I have also seen a 1.6? My 1.6 Laguna is underpowered so I'm wondering is the 1.6 S40 the same. Anyone driven one?

While I'm at it, 02 Lagunas seem to be selling for about €13K on cbg and carzone but a relation in the motor trade told me to expect about €9K for a trade-in. I was stunned at the difference. I know the dealer needs to make a few quid but this seems like a lot.

The 1996 - 2004 Volvo S40 was based on the Mitsubishi Carisma and was built in Holland along side the Carisma as part of a joint venture between Volvo and Mitsubishi. Volvo tried to market the S40 as an alternative to the Audi A4 and BMW 3 Series.

Not sure who makes the 1.6 engine, I would presume it is either the same unit in the Carisma or made by Renault. This engine is very underpowered and only sold here because of lower running costs. Alot of car makers do this here but the reality is that the smaller engine struggles in the heavy body and economy suffers big time. The 1.8 is probably just as economical as the 1.6, only tax and insurance are more expensive.

Some of the 1.8 engines in S40s (depending on model) were the GDi engine from the Carisma. This engine was known to be very economical and reliable.

The 1.9 TD S40 had 102bhp and from 2001 115bhp, this was made by Renault. The 115bhp version was not a bad unit and would be my choice in the range. Best go for the SE trim as this usually includes air con, alloys and leather seats.

colm_mcm

it doesn't really make sense to go from 02 to 03 though,

Lemo

BrianD3 wrote:

This is the old model S40 we're talking about right? I am just wondering why you are considering changing from a Laguna II to one of those. The Volvo is inferior in most areas which is no surpirse seeing as its a much older design.

Laguna is giving trouble - had to replace the gearbox a- and have lost faith in it.

I haven't driven the S40 yet but I wonder why you think they're so much worse than the Laguna. I'll go for the 1.8. Would obviously prefer to go to an 04 but the lousy trade-in that I'm likely to get on the Laguna means I'll only be able to afford an 03.

Appreciate all the replies. Thanks.

colm_mcm

yeah, but the S40 won't be worth a lot when you trade it in either

I think the reason Brian is saying the S40 is worse than the Laguna is that it's less comfortable, less stylish (arguable) but crucially it was launched in the mid ninties and it seriously dated. then again, if you like the S40, then you should get it.

glynf

Lemo, I had an old model S40 1.8 as a loaner for 2 days, it was an 04 and found the very slow and thirsty as well, also very dull to drive.
The interior is not bad, a bit drab but the seats are good, ideal if you do a lot of milage, in which case go for the diesel as mentioned above.

unkel

bazz26 wrote:

The 1996 - 2004 Volvo S40 was based on the Mitsubishi Carisma and was built in Holland along side the Carisma as part of a joint venture between Volvo and Mitsubishi.

Indeed. Probably the very last bit of mass car manufacturing in the Netherlands. That was the end. RIP

bazz26 wrote:

Volvo tried to market the S40 as an alternative to the Audi A4 and BMW 3 Series.

A preposterous thought but it seemed to have worked. The old S40 is the size of a Golf / Focus but the market perception generally was that it was the size of a Passat / Mondeo / BMW 3-series and / or even up to the same quality or even prestige level. Why? :eek:

The Ford genious that came up with that great marketing plan deserves a massive bonus imho

junkyard

If you like Renaults you'll probably love it but I hate Renaults so I don't. Volvo really lost the plot in the last twenty years or so in my opinion, Volvo used to represent secure, strong, quality cars that were safe as-well. Please don't start with all the N-CAP crap or whatever as it doesn't wash with me to be honest. It was a sorry day for Volvo the day Renault started seeping into the plans of future Volvo's. We can see the result, plastic everywhere, dull looks,
boring designs and blandness everywhere. When we see mistakes like the 340 series, the 400 series, the 850, S40 and the S80, if they made a mistake once you could forgive them but to make it a second, third and so on is just unforgivable.

Lemo

junkyard wrote:

If you like Renaults you'll probably love it

Ouch! Am I really that dull? :-)

I'm having second thoughts now about the S40 and glad I asked. I'll test drive one but I'll start looking at other options. Another Laguna is the fallback but I did swear I would never buy another when the gearbox went in this one after 3 years and 40K miles!

Thanks again.

bazz26

unkel wrote:

The Ford genious that came up with that great marketing plan deserves a massive bonus imho

Actually I don't think Ford owned Volvo back in the early 1990s when the first S40 was being developed, I think Renault had a major influence in Volvo back then as they used a number of engines including the oil burners.

Still as you say it was a good marketing ploy and kind of still works today with the new S40. The S40 kind of sits above the main stream models but below so called compact executives. The S40 is a bit like the Honda Accord, Alfa 156 and maybe Audi A4 or Lexus IS.

The new S40 from 2004 is all Ford Focus though.

unkel

Forgot to mention that the S40 1.6 is not that slow. It has 109bhp which is average / above average for a 1.6 of that age. 0 - 100km/h in 12 seconds. Not fast by any means but not dead slow either

bazz26 wrote:

Actually I don't think Ford owned Volvo back in the early 1990s when the first S40 was being developed, I think Renault had a major influence in Volvo back then as they used a number of engines including the oil burners

You're right. Ford didn't buy Volvo until the late 90s. Cigar for the Renault man then

junkyard wrote:

When we see mistakes like the 340 series

You can't blame Volvo for that one. The 340 was already fully developed as the DAF 77 when Volvo took over DAF. Why blame anyway? The 340 might not have been a great car, but it sold in good numbers and plenty were still seen on the road when most similar aged and priced cars had long disappeared

Sesshoumaru

I wouldn't consider the 1.6 litre if I were you. I imagine that must be fairly slow in a car the size of an S40. I bought a 1998 S40 last year and I am very happy with it. I got the 2 litre version and find its got good power(137bhp) and the fuel economy is respectable as long as you are not always flooring the accelerator. The car has good handling as well, going into corners the car feels safe and secure. You can push it harder as well and it doesn't break a sweat eating up those corners. Although mine has traction control, not sure if thats a standard feature on S40's from that era. I would highly recommend one to anyone considering buying an S40. But probably best to get one with the Mitsubishi GDI engine, they are considered better and more reliable.

alias no.9

unkel wrote:

Forgot to mention that the S40 1.6 is not that slow. It has 109bhp which is average / above average for a 1.6 of that age. 0 - 100km/h in 12 seconds. Not fast by any means but not dead slow either

The OP finds his 1.6 Laguna with the same engine to be somewhat underpowered, the volvo is marginally heavier and therefore unlikely to feel any more lively.

delboy159

Just to let you know I bought a 01 1.8 petrol S40 about 9 months ago (with 37k on the clock). I am very happy with it. The city driving does drink the fuel, but once you are on the open road it is very economical.

I find it a pleasure to drive, fair enough its not in the high styling bracket or in any way comparable with a 3 series or an A4 etc. but its a nice bit cheaper than that class of car (2nd hand) and still a good motor in many respects.

At the moment I'm so happy with mine I intend driving it until it stops. But I'm a boring Volvo owner - what can I say.....

By the way - I bought mine from Tom Canavan motors - very happy with them....

BrianD3

junkyard wrote:

If you like Renaults you'll probably love it but I hate Renaults so I don't. Volvo really lost the plot in the last twenty years or so in my opinion, Volvo used to represent secure, strong, quality cars that were safe as-well. Please don't start with all the N-CAP crap or whatever as it doesn't wash with me to be honest. It was a sorry day for Volvo the day Renault started seeping into the plans of future Volvo's. We can see the result, plastic everywhere, dull looks,
boring designs and blandness everywhere. When we see mistakes like the 340 series, the 400 series, the 850, S40 and the S80, if they made a mistake once you could forgive them but to make it a second, third and so on is just unforgivable.

Volvo and Renault have been co-operating for at least 30 years when it comes to car engines and gearboxes. But that's where the Renault connection ends. Volvo and Renault car divisions were due to merge in the early nineties but it fell through. If Volvos have become "plastic" and "dull" in recent years then its down to Volvo themselves and Ford and has nothing to do with Renault.

Personally I like the S60, S80, 850 etc. S40 is OK. 400 series was awful. 300 series was underrated, these cars did have a bit of character. 200 and 700 series were the stereotypical big boxy solid Volvos.

BrianD3

BTW the engine situation with the S40 is quite confusing. I'm not sure if the 1.6 petrol is even a Renault engine. The 1.9 diesels and some of the petrol engines in the old 400 were Renault based alright.

OP should do some more research to find out for sure. Maybe try the forums on www.volvoclub.org.uk

unkel

alias no.9 wrote:

The OP finds his 1.6 Laguna with the same engine to be somewhat underpowered, the volvo is marginally heavier and therefore unlikely to feel any more lively.

Ah I missed that! The performance of the two is the same, so if OP finds the Laguna slow, you're right, the S4 will be equally slow. The Laguna is slightly heavier (50kg) BTW

alias no.9

unkel wrote:

Ah I missed that! The performance of the two is the same, so if OP finds the Laguna slow, you're right, the S4 will be equally slow. The Laguna is slightly heavier (50kg) BTW

Being an anorak, I had checked out the weights before posting and got the laguna as 1305kg and the s40 as 1330kg. It just goes to show, you shouldn't believe everything you read on the web.

It does look like volvo's own engine, 1587cc v's renault's 1598cc and 1597 in the carisma. Peugeot do a 1587cc but it's got a different bore/stroke ratio.

unkel

alias no.9 wrote:

Being an anorak

Hello, brother :cool:

alias no.9 wrote:

got the laguna as 1305kg and the s40 as 1330kg

Interesting. Where did you get those figures? I checked several places and the weight depends on the definition (weight empty or curb weight) but the Laguna is always 45-50kg heavier. It wouldn't make sense if it wasn't, the Laguna is a lot bigger and more modern (modern=heavy)

1230kg vs 1280kg empty
1255kg vs 1310kg curb weight
1230kg vs 1285kg

BrianD3

I would agree with unkel. Weight figures for cars are often quite inaccurate and varied and there is info on the internet which is clearly wrong. But based on various sources it would seem that the average weight difference between the Laguna II 1.6 and the S40 1.6 is about 50 kg with the Laguna being heavier. It also makes sense as the Laguna is bigger and newer. I believe teh wieght given in the Renault brochure is around 1290 kg.

alias no.9

Laguna II 1.6
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/id/?id=76582
Volvo S40 1.6
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/id/?id=86757

unkel

alias no.9 wrote:

Volvo S40 1.6
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/id/?id=86757

I think that 1330 is either a typo in that link (i.e.should be 1230) or they incorrectly put the weight of the 2.0 liter there, which indeed is 1330kg

Lemo

****, lads, so now, in addition to all the usual stuff to worry about when buying a secondhand car, I have to start worrying about the weight and whether or not the figures are accurate :-)

Just kidding. I think I need to go and drive an S40 to see what I think. If I don't fancy it then it's back to square one... older A4, Mazda 6, Passat, another Laguna...

BrianD3

Lemo wrote:

****, lads, so now, in addition to all the usual stuff to worry about when buying a secondhand car, I have to start worrying about the weight and whether or not the figures are accurate :-)

Being an anorak is strictly optional