Any thoughts on this Flexifuel S80

censuspro

Any thoughts on this S80 http://www.carzone.ie/search/Volvo/S80/2.0-FLEX/36313711333694930/advert?channel=CARS.

Seems like a very clean car, any ideas on what the mpg and the reliability of the flexi-fuel?

the culture of deference

Very little mileage. Make sure the service history is for every year and not just 1 service for 12,000 miles

Marcusm

A friend bought one of these new in early 2008 - heavy marketing as they were one of the cars with heavy discounts prior to changeover n tax system - the flexfuel element was supposedly "green" but really bollox. He traded it within 3 months of buying it, so fast that I'm not sure I ever had a run in it. He found it painfully slow and underpowered for the size of car. That vintage of s80 had a beautiful interior so I guess it depends on what level of performance is acceptable to you.

Neilw

Isn't E85 gone now?

So that Volvo might aswell be a normal petrol car, the flexifuel element is redundant.

milltown

Don't take flexifuel into consideration when deciding. Once the gubmint removed the tax incentives for the biofuel it became more expensive than petrol and promptly disappeared from forecourts. Running on petrol, that car is no "green machine". My Dad has one and when I saw that it was taxed on the cc system I enquired whether it would be cheaper to tax on the CO2 rate. An emphatic no was the answer!

Nice car, pleasant cockpit and he hasn't had an ounce of trouble with it. Just be aware that it's a big, heavy petrol car and be sure that you can budget accordingly.

censuspro

milltown wrote: »

Don't take flexifuel into consideration when deciding. Once the gubmint removed the tax incentives for the biofuel it became more expensive than petrol and promptly disappeared from forecourts. Running on petrol, that car is no "green machine". My Dad has one and when I saw that it was taxed on the cc system I enquired whether it would be cheaper to tax on the CO2 rate. An emphatic no was the answer!

Nice car, pleasant cockpit and he hasn't had an ounce of trouble with it. Just be aware that it's a big, heavy petrol car and be sure that you can budget accordingly.

Thanks lads, any ideas on the average mpg for this car would be. I do less thank 10,000 miles per year.

Or alternatively should I play it safe and go for this http://www.carzone.ie/search/Volkswagen/Passat/B6-COMFO/36813699107740990/advert?channel=CARS

R.O.R

Had a couple of S80 FF's on fleet from 08.

One came back with 88k. Only thing out of the ordinary is Petrol Pump Modification at 52k, done under warranty. Rear Pads were done at 63k and the rest was servicing and tyres.

Other came back with 95k. Power steering reservoir replaced under warranty at 18k, Petrol Pump modification done at similar time to the one above (March 2010), but no mileage recorded. Exhaust heat shield fixed under warranty at 70k. Rear Pads at 48k and some pads done at 92k, but didn't say if it was fronts or rears again.

I was considering one of them when it came back as it was an SE LUX in Black with Black Leather, and really good condition, then I drove it and it really struggles to pull the car along properly. It's not Focus 1.4i slow, but I couldn't have lived with it. Big performance difference to the Accord 2.0i I had at the time.

Also - that Beige interior looks nice after it's just had a full, professional, valet, but give it a couple of months and it will look pretty tired, unless you are the sort of person who cleans it weekly, and is careful in the car anyway.

Take it for a test drive and see if you can live with the power. Fuel consumption is less than fantastic as you need to work the engine pretty hard to get anywhere. Based on the ones we had they seem pretty reliable.

Servicing is due every 10k on the FF models, and Volvo dealers aren't cheap. Think it's a lube service at 10k and full at 20k - seems to be how ours were done in a Volvo dealer.

milltown

censuspro wrote: »

Thanks lads, any ideas on the average mpg for this car would be. I do less thank 10,000 miles per year.

Or alternatively should I play it safe and go for this http://www.carzone.ie/search/Volkswagen/Passat/B6-COMFO/36813699107740990/advert?channel=CARS

I don't have figures, and I doubt he would either, but he reckons it's easier on juice than his previous BMW 523 manual. I reckon that would have been giving him low to mid 20s as he would rarely do an extended run these days.

bazz26

Fuel consumption is poor on the FF engines but this was masked at the time by the lost cost of bioethanol and Government purchase incentive. These days that incentive is gone and bioethanol is no longer available so the car needs to be really cheap to compensate for the high fuel usage and low frequent between servicing.

censuspro

How bad is the performace on these cars, does the car crawl along or is it a case that we're comparing it to other 2.0L models?

crosshair1

I run one of these , most of the driving is short (non urban) journeys occasional motorway and I average 32/33mpg on the clock. Also worked it out once on the tank and was pretty close.
They are slow but will move when revved.
They are very lowly geared in top 3k/105kph so this doesnt really suit extended motorway driving
Very comfy though

hullaballoo

Some specs:

http://www.justaboutcars.co.uk/s80-20f-flexifuel-p-4406.html

http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=8888

No idea what the VW is like to drive but the Volvo is a heavy car and I found it frustrating to drive. I also found the consumption quite high that might be unfair given that I was revving it to get it to move.

I would suggest that the VW engine isn't going to give you much satisfaction either, again because the car is heavy.

The Volvo does look like the better bet for the price. Mileage looks good and it's a very comfortable, solid car. The diesel model has a good kick if you don't mind waiting!

censuspro

Does anyone know what would be a comparable car in terms of performance against the S80 1.9L?

Also, if the 1.9 petrol is considered sluggish, what's the 1.6 like?

R.O.R

censuspro wrote: »

Does anyone know what would be a comparable car in terms of performance against the S80 1.9L?

Also, if the 1.9 petrol is considered sluggish, what's the 1.6 like?

The 1.6 diesel S80 is no where near as bad as it sounds. Gearing is different from the other models to make the most of the power band, and it's surprisingly nippy for a large car / small engine. Only drove one around the block so might not be quite as good to live with on a day to day basis, but feedback from people who've driven them for a while is generally positive.

Do you do enough mileage to warrant a diesel? Short hops in a 1.6d Volvo is a recipe for disaster unless it gets a decent spin every now and again.

The 2.0d model isn't spectacular either as the gearing doesn't seem to match the engine (we had a V70 2.0d for a while). D3 is much much better, but only came out late 2010 so probably out of budget.

The Passat 1.4T is pretty decent to drive - much better than the 2.0i FF in the S80, but a Passat Comfortline is no where near as nice a place to be as an S80. Personally I'd sacrifice performance and fuel economy of the Passat for the space and comfort of the Volvo.

censuspro

R.O.R wrote: »

The 1.6 diesel S80 is no where near as bad as it sounds. Gearing is different from the other models to make the most of the power band, and it's surprisingly nippy for a large car / small engine. Only drove one around the block so might not be quite as good to live with on a day to day basis, but feedback from people who've driven them for a while is generally positive.

Do you do enough mileage to warrant a diesel? Short hops in a 1.6d Volvo is a recipe for disaster unless it gets a decent spin every now and again.

The 2.0d model isn't spectacular either as the gearing doesn't seem to match the engine (we had a V70 2.0d for a while). D3 is much much better, but only came out late 2010 so probably out of budget.

The Passat 1.4T is pretty decent to drive - much better than the 2.0i FF in the S80, but a Passat Comfortline is no where near as nice a place to be as an S80. Personally I'd sacrifice performance and fuel economy of the Passat for the space and comfort of the Volvo.

I do very little mileage, about 15,000 km per year if even. Is the performance of the S80 that bad. What would be a fair comparison, is it like driving a 1.4 Corolla for example?

R.O.R

censuspro wrote: »

I do very little mileage, about 15,000 km per year if even. Is the performance of the S80 that bad. What would be a fair comparison, is it like driving a 1.4 Corolla for example?

Don't think I've ever driven a 1.4 Corolla. Don't drive Petrol cars that frequently now.

Was pretty similar performance to the wife's old V50 1.8i, but maybe just a touch slower.

It isn't horrifically slow. Probably depends what you are used to. If you aren't too far away from Tynan's, it's worth taking a spin to see what you think.

censuspro

Is it a case that we are comparing this particular S80 to high performance diesels, then if so will it not always look feeble; but compare it to diesels of the mid-late 90s, and it's more than adequate for most mere mortals who just want to get around comfortably?

R.O.R

censuspro wrote: »

Is it a case that we are comparing this particular S80 to high performance diesels, then if so will it not always look feeble; but compare it to diesels of the mid-late 90s, and it's more than adequate for most mere mortals who just want to get around comfortably?

When I drove the S80 FF we got back, my car at the time was an Accord 2.0i, so it was a comparison to that.Now the Accord is a bit smaller and lighter than the S80, and the VTEC engine is the best in class (IMHO) so it's probably an unfair comparison, but I've also driven Mondeo 2.0i, Passat 2.0FSi, Audi 2.0i and more or less everything else in that class, and the Volvo does feel slower.

I did drive a Corolla 1.4 yesterday. Collected it from a company I can see from our office window, so only about 300m of a drive, but that was horrible on even such a short journey (didn't make it out of 2nd) - the S80 is no where near that bad.