Volvo V50

I8A4RE

I'm thinking of buying a V50 and I'm enquiring as to what are peoples opinions/experiences of them.

I saw a petrol/flexifuel version that i'm interested in but there is more choice in the diesel version.

bazz26

The S40/V50 is based on the Mk2 Ford Focus. The V50 has a decent size boot but interior legroom like the S40 saloon is very tight. The 1.8 flexifuel engines are thirsty enough and require servicing around every 10,000 km. The 1.6 and 2.0 diesel are from Peugeot/Citroen and also found in Fords and Mazdas.

Unless your driving style warrants a diesel car then best avoid potential issues that can come with short stop/start driving of diesel cars. Also Volvo parts can be expensive and many of them can only be sourced from Volvo dealers who know how to charge for them. A replacement key for example will cost you over €200. They are nice to drive though and most are well speced, electrics are known to cause problems.

Nuw

If you don't pay over the odds for it, it makes a good deal of sense. As above, the 1.8 flexifuel will require maintenance every 10K and is relatively thirsty (>30 mpg), it's nice to drive however and should be fairly reliable. As for parts, never heard of them being massively more expensive than other manufacturer's in the same league, but it might very well be the case, might be worth double-checking.

Should you go for a diesel, the 2.0 is the one to get, the 1.6 may feel underpowered, both are good enough to drive though. The 1.6 showed some weaknesses, however less in the Volvos than in the other manufacturers (Volvo put them together and tinkered with a few things -like replacing seals with higher grade ones than originally designed- making the unit more reliable).

bazz26

Nuw wrote: »

If you don't pay over the odds for it, it makes a good deal of sense. As above, the 1.8 flexifuel will require maintenance every 10K and is relatively thirsty (>30 mpg), it's nice to drive however and should be fairly reliable. As for parts, never heard of them being massively more expensive than other manufacturer's in the same league, but it might very well be the case, might be worth double-checking.

Should you go for a diesel, the 2.0 is the one to get, the 1.6 may feel underpowered, both are good enough to drive though. The 1.6 showed some weaknesses, however less in the Volvos than in the other manufacturers (Volvo put them together and tinkered with a few things -like replacing seals with higher grade ones than originally designed- making the unit more reliable).

I'd have to disagree with you on a few things there. I had that PSA 1.6d engine in a S40 some years back and it gave it's fair share of issues. Reliability was average at best.

Also I've owned VW and BMW cars since and Volvo parts have cost me more. The main problem being that because Volvo is not a volume seller like VW, BMW, etc you have to rely more on buying parts from Volvo rather than your local motor factor which is where they are expensive.

I'm not saying don't buy a V50. They are well finished, nice to drive and built solid but like any car there are drawbacks.

Nuw

Hi Bazz, thanks for that. The last volvo I drove was in France (and that was a good while back) and I did not remember parts being more expensive than other manufacturers, might be down to poor distribution in Ireland... or (just as likely) failing memory...
The 1.6D is definitely not a bombproof engine, my point was that the ones (and it may very well be the latter ones, when Volvo got fed up with the warranty claims) Volvo used were using slightly different parts than the ones found in Mazdas and Fords and that these were less prone to failure compared to same unit found in Fords or Mazdas.

mullingar

Nuw wrote: »

The 1.6D is definitely not a bombproof engine, my point was that the ones (and it may very well be the latter ones, when Volvo got fed up with the warranty claims) Volvo used were using slightly different parts than the ones found in Mazdas and Fords and that these were less prone to failure compared to same unit found in Fords or Mazdas.

BS. All the 1.6D 16v's were made the same way with same parts in one or two factories then shipped to car manufacturer across all ford/volvo/Peugeot /citroen/mini/Suzukis etc... . It's only the ancillaries that are different.

The biggest weakness on those engines were the owners, the engines were not tolerant of incorrect/poor servicing.

Nuw

OK, so upon double checking a good few things:
The engine is a cooperation between Ford and PSA. Volvo, being in the FoMoCo at the time, simply were allowed to use it - like Ford the T5.
At the same time, the engine is built in many different plants. Even in Skövde in Sweden. Depending on when built and how much demand was there, it could even be a Volvo built (made in Sweden in Skövde).

So to sum it up for OP:

Petrol:
1.6: Zetec design from Ford (not that reliable, old design)
1.8/F and 2.0: Duratec HE design engineered by Mazda (before someone goes berzerk on this, it's information I've found, not necessarily gospel).
2.5T (5 cyl): Volvo engines

Diesel:
1.6/DRIVe, 2.0 (4cyl): PSA/Ford engine but some of them have definitely been assembled by Volvo which appear to be more durable than the same engines found in Fords or Peugeots (could it be related to the ancillaries Mullingar so graciously mentioned?)
2.0 (5 cyl), 2.5 (5 cyl): Volvo engines

wotswattage

Is the 1.8 that thirsty?
Using figures from Parkers which I find to be fairly spot on for any cars I've owned, it shows 39 which normal for a petrol of that era.

I'm looking at an S40/V50/C30 at the moment but I'm right between diesel and petrol mileage so can't decide. My figures are all from Parkers so if they are shown to be inaccurate for the petrol I'm Defo in diesel territory!

1.6 Petrol 40mpg
1.8 Petrol 39mpg

1.6 Diesel 57mpg
2.0 Diesel 50mpg

Figures here : http://www.parkers.co.uk/volvo/s40/saloon-2004/specs/

Cee-Jay-Cee

wotswattage wrote: »

Is the 1.8 that thirsty?
Using figures from Parkers which I find to be fairly spot on for any cars I've owned, it shows 39 which normal for a petrol of that era.

I'm looking at an S40/V50/C30 at the moment but I'm right between diesel and petrol mileage so can't decide. My figures are all from Parkers so if they are shown to be inaccurate for the petrol I'm Defo in diesel territory!

1.6 Petrol 40mpg
1.8 Petrol 39mpg

1.6 Diesel 57mpg
2.0 Diesel 50mpg

Figures here : http://www.parkers.co.uk/volvo/s40/saloon-2004/specs/

You can generally deduct 25% from the figures quoted in Parkers (who simply copy and paste the manufacturers figures) so 30mpg for the 1.6 petrol and slightly less for the 1.8.

Honest Johns website give real owners figures and is more accurate.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/volvo/v50-2004

wotswattage

Did you look at the figures in that site you referenced?
I found parkers very accurate for my previous 3 cars and they weren't using manufacturer data.

OP, keep in mind (and this is anecdotal from me) that insurance for diesels in the same car can be much higher than petrol. My current insurer want €1200-1300 to insure the diesels vs €750-850 for the petrol models of an S40/V50 That's for a full year - id be switching and paying for the remainder of the year.

bazz26

Your not going to get near 39mpg from the 1.8 petrol flexifuel. They are thirsty which was fine when you could buy bioethanol for 80ish cent per litre back in the day when it was available here.

mullingar

Nuw wrote: »

OK, so upon double checking a good few things:
The engine is a cooperation between Ford and PSA. Volvo, being in the FoMoCo at the time, simply were allowed to use it - like Ford the T5.
At the same time, the engine is built in many different plants. Even in Skövde in Sweden. Depending on when built and how much demand was there, it could even be a Volvo built (made in Sweden in Skövde).

So to sum it up for OP:

Petrol:
1.6: Zetec design from Ford (not that reliable, old design)
1.8/F and 2.0: Duratec HE design engineered by Mazda (before someone goes berzerk on this, it's information I've found, not necessarily gospel).
2.5T (5 cyl): Volvo engines

Diesel:
1.6/DRIVe, 2.0 (4cyl): PSA/Ford engine but some of them have definitely been assembled by Volvo which appear to be more durable than the same engines found in Fords or Peugeots (could it be related to the ancillaries Mullingar so graciously mentioned?)
2.0 (5 cyl), 2.5 (5 cyl): Volvo engines

The PSA diesel engines are either made in the huge PSA engine plant in Trémery or the Ford engine plant in Dagenham.


Please quote proof of source to prove otherwise

Nuw

In fairness I don't remember my sources however upon googling it, it appears wikipedia (for what it's worth, not saying it's to be taken for granted) agrees with me as well as a good few people on volvo forums (again, not necessarily reliable info). I couldn't find hard evidence in the form of documentation emitted by manufacturers this time around. Does that mean it isn't true? Up to you to decide...

stephenmarr

We have a 2007 V50 1.8 flexifuel

Its an excellent car and mpg is around the mid 30's

We were lucky enough to find a low mileage 1 owner very very clean example with plenty of extras.

Keyless entry and drive

Winter and Family pack

BLISS - Blind Spot Information System {very rare}

Chameleon Blue pearl {lovely color in the flesh}

There a lovey car to drive.

Other than servicing nothing has gone wrong with ours in the 4 years ownership

wowy

stephenmarr wrote: »

We have a 2007 V50 1.8 flexifuel

Its an excellent car and mpg is around the mid 30's

We were lucky enough to find a low mileage 1 owner very very clean example with plenty of extras.

Keyless entry and drive

Winter and Family pack

BLISS - Blind Spot Information System {very rare}

Chameleon Blue pearl {lovely color in the flesh}

There a lovey car to drive.

Other than servicing nothing has gone wrong with ours in the 4 years ownership

Mid-30's? What sort of driving are you doing? I'm only getting 25mpg from my 2008 1.8F after almost 4 years, albeit a *lot* of my driving is short (5-10 minute) journeys.

Other than thirst, I've had no major issues with the car in that time.

stephenmarr

Mostly motorway driving.