Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Honda Accord '97 versus Volvo S40 '98

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    gyppo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,648 ✭✭✭gyppo


    Accord all the way.

    There is something about the s40 alright - its sh1te. (I owned one for a long miserable six months).


    Actually, I'd forget about the accord too - buy this instead. (Theres an error in this ad - min size engines in these is 1.8l)

    http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carid=774368


  • Options
    #3
    Leon11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 578 ✭✭✭Leon11


    is the 626 as reliable as an accord?


  • Options
    #4
    gyppo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,648 ✭✭✭gyppo


    Leon11 wrote:
    is the 626 as reliable as an accord?

    Every bit as reliable. The only things that wore out on mine were drop link arms in the front and rear antl-roll bars. About 50E a go.


  • Options
    #5
    Leon11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 578 ✭✭✭Leon11


    nice one, I'll throw the 626 into the equation now too. Out goes the S40


  • Options
    #6
    IrishRover
    Closed Accounts Posts: 602 ✭✭✭IrishRover


    That particular Accord looks to be in great condition. It has nice alloys and nice to have the boot spoiler. It's reliable and dependable and fairly easy to work on.

    The 1.8 SOHC engine in it I would describe as adequate to move the car, but overall it's uninspiring.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    bazz26
    Registered Users Posts: 51,239 ✭✭✭✭bazz26


    I'm going to be bias here as I had an Accord like that a good few years ago but it was the 2.0 litre. Great car, never once let me down and it was a nice drive too. Boot is not the biggest in the world but I found it was grand. Interior was roomie enough too, build quality was excellent and the 2.0 litre engine was very responsive. Overall I was very happy with the car. Never driven the 1.8 litre but I have heard it is a little underpowered, might not be the outmost importance to you though. The one in the link looks very nice but €2,800 asking price for a 97 model is way too much irrespective of condition imo.

    If you need space I found the Volvo to be very lacking in that department, especially rear leg room and boot. But the end of the day it is based on the Mitsubishi Carisma which is a smaller class car than the Accord. I would also watch the electrics on the S40 as ones of that vintage may suffer from electrical gremlins. Also avoid the S40 with the Mitsubishi 1.8 GDi petrol engine as it is known to be very rough. Best one is the 1.9 diesel which is an old school Renault diesel engine. Not much goes wrong with it but most will have inter galactic mileage on them at this stage.

    My money would be on the Accord.


  • Options
    #8
    ~~SKYHIGH~~
    Closed Accounts Posts: 69 ✭✭~~SKYHIGH~~


    We had a Rover 600i which is the same as a Honda accord and found it reliable except for minor electrical issues. Those generation accords are nice from some angles but boring and average from others...

    The Volvo would be the plushest out of the three mentioned if a little boring also but am sure it will do 500k and still go on...

    The 626 is getting increasingly popular with people pulling caravans so I have noticed especially that generation of 626.

    I would buy neither of the three above if it were my my money.


  • Options
    #9
    groupb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 542 ✭✭✭groupb


    The only rovers to use honda engines were the 825/827 , 623i & the 216/416 auto. All the others of recent times have been rover petrol engines & in certain diesels , psa engines. you often see people advertising 214s as " honda engines " . Honda never built the k series.Going back to your origonal question I would pick the accord any day over the volvo s40 , as it (the volvo) was based on one of the most boring cars ever made & earlier ones wer'nt excatly bombproof.I think some people view volvos with vw type rose tinted glasses.


  • Options
    #10
    IrishRover
    Closed Accounts Posts: 602 ✭✭✭IrishRover


    You're wrong groupb.
    The Rover 618, 620 and 623 were all Honda engines.
    The only 600 models not to use a Honda engine was the 620ti (2 litre petrol turbo) and the diesels.

    You're right, the 214 was a K series Rover engine, but all 216 and 416 pre 1996 used Honda engines, not just the autos.


  • Options
    #11
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users Posts: 73,454 ✭✭✭✭colm_mcm


    Mazda Xedos 6 do anything for you? 2.0 V6. lovely looking car.

    97 with 51 on the clock for 4500 here. should be able to be argued down a bit!
    http://search.autotrader.ie/www/cars_advert?country=IE&sort=5&currency=EUR&modelexact=1&make=Mazda&model=Xedos+6&min_pr=&max_pr=&county_list=3_4_5_6_7_10_11_12_13_14_15_16_18_19_20_21_22_23_24_25_26_28_29_30_31_32_33&x=33&y=8&id=200737186912747

    pic of a different one:
    Mazda-Xedos-6-V6-liXu.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    JHMEG
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,686 ✭✭✭JHMEG


    IrishRover wrote:
    You're wrong groupb.
    The Rover 618, 620 and 623 were all Honda engines.
    The only 600 models not to use a Honda engine was the 620ti (2 litre petrol turbo) and the diesels.

    You're right, the 214 was a K series Rover engine, but all 216 and 416 pre 1996 used Honda engines, not just the autos.

    Spot on. As a general rule if it was a VTEC engine then Rover didn't have it, and if it was turbo, diesel, or a 1.4 it was a Rover engine.

    OP for the kind of money you might just sneak yourself a 1998 model Accord.

    That S40, being built in Belgium and based on a Mitsubishi Carisma, owned by Ford, is not especially reliable.


  • Options
    #13
    E92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,147 ✭✭✭E92


    JHMEG wrote:
    That S40, being built in Belgium and based on a Mitsubishi Carisma, owned by Ford, is not especially reliable.

    The Belgian built S40 is the one based on the Ford Focus.

    The Dutch built S40(which is the one the OP is on about and very loosely based on the Carisma, of the 5,000 parts fitted to the Volvo and Mitsu, only 1,000 are common to both(mostly the chassis), and about 65% of those that are common were designed by Volvo) consistantly won the What Car? award for those Lex Reliability surveys they used to do.

    However the Japanese engined model(the 1.8 with a Mitsubishi engine) was a poor unit, and thats being kind(I know since I drive one). The diesel was sourced from Renault, which doesn't inspire me with confidence, but apparantly it's ok.

    The Volvo engined models are fine. There are minor electrical issues with the car, namely the fact that because the car has day running lights, it goes through light bulbs like there's no tomorrow. And the electric aerial, which often doesn't go up/down properly, and sometimes falls off(which can be replaced for €15). And the lights on the centre console go blank with age sometimes. The paintwork can be sometimes not the best on them too, and the plastic bits on the outside have a habit of turing very grey with age(door handles, bumper strips, under the front windscreen).

    The S40 is a fine bus if you find a good one, and don't mind cars that are not exactly at the height of what you might call driving pleasure or performance.

    If interested in the Volvo OP try to find a 99 or newer S40. They're better over the bumps, especially the Phase II models.


  • Options
    #14
    JHMEG
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,686 ✭✭✭JHMEG


    E92 wrote:
    The Belgian built S40 is the one based on the Ford Focus..
    Sorry, got the country wrong. Based on the experiences of 3 people I know who had the earlier models (a 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0), none were especially reliable, and suffered from silly faults.

    The 2006 What Car warranty claims index (a somewhat scientific measurement of reliability in older cars) shows Volvo down at #16, and Honda at #1.

    The 1.8 direct injection Mitsubishi engine is prone to coking, but the OP is looking at a 2.0 (well the carzone ad is for a 2.0).

    Having said that when new the S40 was a smart looking car, with little going against it aside from no legroom in the back.


  • Options
    #15
    Leon11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 578 ✭✭✭Leon11


    colm_mcm wrote:
    Mazda Xedos 6 do anything for you? 2.0 V6. lovely looking car.

    97 with 51 on the clock for 4500 here. should be able to be argued down a bit!
    http://search.autotrader.ie/www/cars_advert?country=IE&sort=5&currency=EUR&modelexact=1&make=Mazda&model=Xedos+6&min_pr=&max_pr=&county_list=3_4_5_6_7_10_11_12_13_14_15_16_18_19_20_21_22_23_24_25_26_28_29_30_31_32_33&x=33&y=8&id=200737186912747

    pic of a different one:
    Mazda-Xedos-6-V6-liXu.jpg

    loving that car!


  • Options
    #16
    bazz26
    Registered Users Posts: 51,239 ✭✭✭✭bazz26


    The Xedos 6 gets most of it's running gear from the 1992 to 1997 Mazda 626 afaik. Definately go for the 2.0 litre V6 version with all the trimings, they can be bought for peanuts these days. Might be worth sourcing a clean example in the UK. The few they sold over hear are probably very tatty at this stage. Avoid the 1.6 litre version, it's laughable.


Advertisement