| Archive for The Motor Forum talking cars since 2006 |
| Frank Bullitt |
Breaking a habit - courting forum opinionOK, so as you can imagine the smart is no longer going to be in our lives with the arrival of Johan as we are finding having a two-seater a bit of a pain and my wife is (now) adamant the smart won't be used to transport our son. I've loved every minute of ownership both of this one and the last, it will be deeply missed; I will own one again one day too. It needs a service soon, and its first MOT then it will be going up for sale.Normally I'm a man's man when it comes to cars; I decide what I want then buy it. However, I have a quandry and it's this: I want a Volvo S60 D5 SE (FG for me, not HS S-spec, sorry Peet); ideally a 2005MY car so is facelifted with smooth bumpers but not the later 185bhp engine with a DPF because a) they seem to clog if you don't drive too-hard too-often and b) I can't afford one. My problem seems to be pre-facelift cars well under budget or facelifted cars that have been driven to Pluto and back. I'd be happy with an earlier car but my wife upped the budget (!!!) in order to get the later car! Believe it or not, it took us a while to decide the S60 was big enough; I didn't realise it's shorter than the V70 (which shares a wheelbase with the S80, not S60...) and the old chestnut of rear legroom raised it's head; it is big enough but only just. We'll get Isofix fitted to both rear seats so Johan can always sit behind my wife (my knee's are in the dashboard with junior behind me). Boot space is also reasonable but no more - our 'travel system' fits with enough space for a few other bits but for long journey's either one side of the seat will go down or we'll get a top box. So, in looking we are struggling to find exactly what we want so will either have to compromise on the facelift car or accept something 4/5 of the way to 100K. So what's the problem and why the rambing? My friend has a V50 2.4 auto on a 2004 '04' which he will happily sell me for well-under my budget. It's the right spec (SE with winter pack and sunroof), it has 45K on the clock and only 14K on a new engine (he went over something in the road which ripped his sump off, he looks after his cars). Also, bizarely, the V50 has actually got more rear room than the S60 and the boot is of course bigger. Down sides? It is sodding silver, anyone would think I like the colour, and unfortunately the auto; he gets 28mpg on average which will come as a shock to my system and although it has the lovely 5-pot warble it 'aint exactly a ball of fire. He is a Volvo-phile (also has a V70 D5, last of the old shape, a V70 Ocean Racer 2.4D before and a V70 D5 S before that...) and now that D5 V50's are in his budget for the work-horse car he's tempted to get one; there is nothing wrong with the car at all but the dealer thinks a petrol 2.4 auto is used-car syphillis and has offered him bottom-book. So, my choices are: 1) Buy the V50 knowing I'm getting a good deal on a good car; my wife would use it as a daily driver due to the economy and I'd just accept the wallet-rape every time we went on a long journey (holiday's, for example) and having 217 carbons it's only a Badger's-Annual anal-raping from being a remortgage jobbie on the car tax. If I buy it, nobody would want it from me so it'll stay until it dies. I'd still be driving the A2 for work. 2) Buy a pre-facelift S60 D5 SE - lovely motor, starting to look a bit old in pre-facelift guise and only just big enough (seriously!). My budget should get us a cherished '53 or '04 on average miles, and I'd be very, very happy. I'd have the S60, keeping the miles off the A2, and it would probably last until I was very bored of it. 3) Buy a facelifted S60 D5 SE. It's what I want but psychologically a car with 80K on the clock 'sounds' tired, even though it's a Volvo and I've no doubt it would have another 70K in it before bills really hit. Again, I'd have the S60 most of the time so it's only 5 years away from big bills. I'm willing to take thoughts, although all suggestions of a BMW 328 or Subaru Legacy will be ignored (   ). One thing bringing me back to number 3 is being persistant with finding the right car when I bought the A2 means I know I'm happy to keep it for years - I'm not intending to change for 5 years +.
As noted in my 'full service history' post, finding one that's been serviced properly will be the next challenge... Enough rambling - the floor is yours... |
||||
| Guitar Zero |
Why do you want a diesel ?
IMHO, you would be far better off with a 2.0T or a 2.4T manual. You will get a newer, lower mileage car for your money. e.g http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es...ture=2005&vehicleRegLetter=55 or this http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es...ture=2006&vehicleRegLetter=06 This is the jubs http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es...ture=2006&vehicleRegLetter=06 As for diesels - this is a cracking price http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es...ture=2006&vehicleRegLetter=06 |
||||
| Guitar Zero |
Oh yeah........
V50 auto - bleurgh !!!! 
|
||||
| SpecB |
Surprisingly I won't advocate the Legacy - low 20's MPG and £450 per annum tax when starting a family is probably not a good idea.
The same reason I would turn down the V50 and the last time I sat in one I thought it was tiny so if you think an S60 is only just big enough, I wouldn't bother despite you saying it seems bigger - must be something to do with the floor and seat height. The S60 is a nice car and if you can afford the post-facelifted version then I feel you may already have made your mind up!
Incidentally, the reason my dad bought his S80 was that he thought the S60 tight in the back. I would see if he would prefer to sell the Ocean Race V70 - that is one nice special edition! Edit - I don't know if Volvo use the same five speed auto in the V50 that I had in my V40 but that died at 70k so just a word of warning. |
||||
| Martin |
I agree with you re the S60 interior space, it isn't as big as people think inside. One thing to think about if you're going to get something that will stay with you for a long time. Is there a chance/thought/option of having any more kids? If so, you'll need something that will take a car seat behind you and a travel system in the boot. I guess that if you do, Johan will be bigger and won't take up quite as much space car seat wise?
I don't understand why you think a V50 is bigger, they feel like quite a small car inside to me?? It sounds like it has to be a Volvo.......you aren't giving us much to work with!! I think I would have to find the right facelifted S60. I like the V50 less than the S60 anyway and then it's silver, an auto, torque light ad thirsty. On the plus side, it's a petrol, but I can't think of any other positives. I've been a passenger in a V50 1.6D S and a 2.0D SE and liked neither. It's not a comfortable car to ride in (one of the reasons for getting a Volvo surely?) and it feels a bit cheap inside. However, while it's interesting to gather opinions, only you can decide!! |
||||
| Martin |
Based on the links GZ posted, it looks like a trip to London is required!!
We bought out A Class from Cargiant and while you wouldn't go there for service, the prices are usually very good. How much would an S80 be? |
||||
| Guitar Zero |
Road tax on the 2.0T manual isn't that bad either
If it's a post 23rd March 2006 car, It's £215 until April 2010, and then £245 from April 2010 onward |
||||
| Frank Bullitt |
Thanks for some quick thoughts chaps!
The V50 deffo has more rear space, I thought the salesman was mad when he suggested it but we did try it and sure-enough probably an additional 2" or-so; not massive but noticeable. The S60 is probably more 'reclined' in terms of seating position where as the V50 is more upright. Martin - our family will only ever be three so no fear there! Also, a forward-facing seat would work behind me, it's just the isofix base and Johan's rear-facing seat that take up more space. Unfortunately my friend's Ocean Race was stolen from his drive; the car was recovered but only one key was found so by the time he priced the replacement of all the locks etc. it was looking expensive; it was, however, a lovely car. He replaced it with a V70 D5. Peet, I know what you're saying regarding the V50; I know it will be cheap but I'll possibly always feel it was just a decent car at a great price. It does, however, sound nice and my wife would be happy to drive it... I'm more tempted by the D5 because it sits well below the governments silly CO2-engineered car tax (all petrol S60's sit perilously close apart from the shit-fest CNG/ LPG versions) and a petrol one would get me back into the wallet-raping come longer journey time; my wife wouldn't drive the S60 (whichever model) very often so I'd be putting 14K per annum on it; at 25-30mpg that's got to hurt! I have no huge affinity to another diesel, but the D5 is a lovely car. It's not a D5 (2.4D instead) but I've been keeping my eye on this: http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es...ture=2006&vehicleRegLetter=06 I am doomed to have another silver car... £7K is the absolute limit - otherwise this one would tweak my nips: http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es...ture=2005&vehicleRegLetter=05 Pre-facelift, this is the sort of thing I can afford with : http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es...ture=2004&vehicleRegLetter=04 Yes, *$**&^£ silver again... |
||||
| Martin |
An S60 2.0T doesn't seem to be as quick as a V50 2.4 Auto?
According to google, 177hp, 180 lb ft, 0-60 in 8.9. V50 2.4 Auto, 168hp, 170 lb-ft, 0-60 in 8.6. Not 100% sure that's right though as you can't always trust google!! |
||||
| Martin |
If it's an S60, then it has to be the facelifted model.
What about a slightly cheeky £7k offer for the blue one. Looks much nicer than the others in that colour with the lighter interior. Although the centre console plastics look like a very dodgy shade of beige! |
||||
| Guitar Zero |
The blue one is very good value - it's drowning in gayness and has only clocked up 60k miles.
You need to spring for some pukka Volvo mats though. BTW - if your doing nearly 15k miles a year, I wouldn't worry about the DPF clogging up. |
||||
| Frank Bullitt |
So the rapid conclusion of the fora is to forget the V50 then? I thought it might be but just wondering if somebody could come up with a good word...
The performance stats for the V50 geartronic vary depending where you look, but it appears to have similar stats to the S60 2.0T manual on the 0-60 although the saloon will hit 140 flat out where as the V50 is 134 (slightly academic to me!). Interestingly, the 2.5T S60 uses slightly less fuel than the 2.0T and has slightly lower carbons. I had a swizz around the Volvo owners club Peet and came to a similar conclusion regarding the DPF; it seems to be London-centric XC90 D5 owners that complain most... However, my budget (£7K) won't stretch to a 2006MY D5; still 163bhp and 340 euro-torques look ample to me. The blue one appeals a great deal but I need to sell the smart first as we have a cost-to-change of £2,500 and trade-in prices are a bad joke. I've budgeted for parking sensors to be fitted for my wife who is insisting on them, and that one already has it so we could probably stretch to it. |
||||
| Guitar Zero |
BTW - If you are planning on remapping the car and you settle on a 2006 MY diesel, don't bother paying extra for the D5 because it is identical to the 2.4D in every way save for the ECU tune. Both will remap to 226 bhp and 460 nm if you use the RICA map (which is apparently the best). Also, because the 2.4D will have run the lower tune for the 3 or so years before you bought it, it's likey to be a better candidate for remapping due to a less stressful life it's led versus a D5 185. | ||||
| Roadrunner |
The Volvo S60 is an excellent choice but, just to keep the debate going a little longer (  ) whenever I see 2.0T written, I think of these:
http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es...ture=2005&vehicleRegLetter=05 |
||||
| cbeaks1 |
Are they not tiny rear space-wise? |
||||
| Frank Bullitt |
The last link didn't come up but I assume it's an Audi from the address?
Peet, a common theme of D5's going pop seems to be a remap; for some reason they are susceptible to it so I'd probably steer-clear. I thought the 185bhp D5 had significant technical differences to the 2.4D? If not then a remap to 185 and 400 euro-torques would make sense. The 185bhp model also has 18K service intervals where the 2.4D retains 12K. |
||||
| Guitar Zero |
The EU4 engines are identical save for the ECU tune | ||||
| Racing |
I can't get excited by a discussion about Volvos I'm sorry to say. All I can contribute is that my mother was a life-long Volvo fan - couple of 240 Turbos, a 940 and two V40s - until she tried the V50 and she thought it was so dreadful that she promptly went and bought an Audi instead. Never thought I'd see the day etc etc... | ||||
| Nice Guy Eddie |
Has the forum gone all a bit funny of late, I go on holiday for a few weeks, come back and all talk is now of Volvos, most bizarre.
I'm sure this has been mentioned but if your after a different sort of junior exec would an X-type not be a better choice. I quite like the X Estate. |
||||
| Mark |
The Audi had probably been to the moon and back at that price - and looks very spartan inside. Out of the two - Volvo every time. The great thing about the Volvo S60 is that you get a great engine and an awful lot of kit for your money. |
||||
| Guitar Zero |
Yeah, because what we really want is another 47 page thread on what colour someone should paint their 4 cylinder BMW, or a list of cars they are not going to buy. I pity the fools who can't see past the badge and I really don't get how an S60 is in anyway boring or dull. Great looks, beefy turbocharged 5 cylinder engines, high quality interiors, awesome stereos - what's not to like ? |
||||
| Racing |
So it looks nice, has a powerful engine, a high-quality interior and a kick-ass stereo. So far, so Audi. What's it like to drive? It seems to me that all Volvos are slated as falling down on that front. I really liked the look and idea of the C30 T5 but it got a pasting in every report I ever read. |
||||
| Mark |
The D5 has an engine with a lot more going for it/charisma than most (all?) bread and butter Audi Petrols - never mind their Diesel efforts. Erm...an A4 is nothing special in the 'drive' department, either. And, one big point to remember is that you can get into a hell of a lot more car (kit-wise) with much lower mileage for a lot less money going the Volvo route. The Audi A4 quoted above was poverty inside with no mention of mileage - ie it was no doubt very high. |
||||
| Guitar Zero |
You would need to drive one yourself to answer that question. If you take a view purely from the mags, the S60 is a decent driving car by any standards - in a monster Autocar roadtest in 2001, 2 of the 5 testers preferred the way the S60 T5 drove to the E46 330i. Evo gave the facelifted T5 4 stars out of 5 and the worst comments I've read about it is that the steering lacks feel and the sport models are too hard. Even if the general concensus is that it doesn't handle as well as a 3 series - why does that make it any more dull or boring or tedious or old manish than any other small/sports saloon ?. I'm more baffled than anything else because S60s have such a lot going for them, but even those who should know better irrationally turn their noses up at them - often without having driven one. |
||||
| Racing |
Just because an Audi A4 is nothing special to drive, that doesn't excuse a Volvo from a requirement to be enjoyable to punt!
My lasting memory of my mother's Volvos - apart from how deathly dull they were to drive - was of how extremely poor their residual values were. Like Alfas they do literally seem to depreciate to zero. At 5 yrs old with 80k on the clock but otherwise immaculate, Mum got £2200 for her last V40. |
||||
| Mark |
That’s not what I was implying (although I can see that's how it could come across) – after driving a few S60’s over the past couple of weeks, they are definitely very underrated - I think it would be very foolish to automatically assume that the Audi is the better car. How it drives or otherwise. |
||||
| Roadrunner |
I think the trouble with Volvo is that they have made some dull and poor-driving cars, such as the V40 and this has tarnished the image of the good ones, like the S60. It's a bit like saying that Ford Escorts are crap, so therefore Mondeos must also be crap.
I do like the S60, but have always liked the VAG 2.0T engine, in its various applications, such as this: http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es...ture=2006&vehicleRegLetter=55 |
||||
| Frank Bullitt |
Yip
Yip again... To answer some of the points raised... Residuals: I'm buying a 4-5 year old car with 70-ish thousand on the clock which we intend to keep until it's worth practically nothing and costs a lot of money to keep; residuals are unimportant to me. I can see how brand-new the Volvo might not stack-up (if pounds, shillings and pence is all you care about) unless you get a Peet-size discount, but used it is unimportant; I'm getting the benefit of Johnny's mum's problem come part-ex. S60 v A4: No contest. I've driven enough A4's (and A3's) to know they are not very nice, stodgy, poor-riding and cramped in the back. I also know that at the mileage I'm buying at super-sized bills will be round the corner, some parts costs make your eyes water. They have all the appeal of eating one of my son's nappies to be honest. The S60 is no B-road 'dab of oppo' fest, but it's very capable, reliable, comfortable and smooth-riding which is what I want. I also want 5 pots. Try finding an '04 or later A4 2.5TDI with electric leather seats, BOSE, spit rear seats, cruise and about 70K on the clock and my £7K budget wouldn't touch it. Neither would I... |
||||
| Martin |
It was only a bit of fun 
I don't think there is a lot wrong with Volvos, I just find them very dull indeed. There isn't one in the range that sparks any sort of interest for me. I got as far as the showroom but had no interest in driving one. Maybe I'm missing out, maybe not, but there is no point getting a car you're not going to like. So if Chris likes the S60, then that's great. They seem like excellent value, but you'd be mad to get a new one, even with a GZ size discount. |
||||
| ALF |
I'm quite fond of modern Volvos, and would be more than happy for the missus to choose a V50 as and when she finally plucks up the courage to change her (just passed 100k miles) Focus. We looked at a handful of V50's before buying the Audi, and she drove one and liked it. A good-looking (especially in sport guise), practical compact estate. Gets my approval (qualification below aside).
I have a hard time believing that volvos cost much less than VAG products to run, especially having run the mostly Audi-parts Passat V6 for many years and to stellar mileages. As long as you use specialists, VAG parts are well priced and the vehicles hardy - though you have a good point that a much younger, lower mileage car for the same money is always appealing. That was always true of Alfas as well... I echo the "why diesel" question, too (though the V50 range in particular seems to push you towards diesel and auto with the D5, which is it's biggest weakness as a range IMHO). Certainly on the A4 forums the 4-pot diesel guys seem to have all the issues, 170bhp lump especially. Factor in the purchase and running cost differences and petrol often looks more favourable, as long as there is an engine in the range with sufficient grunt and economy. Some marques seem to have the odd good petrol lump that also has good economy/emissions, some seem hugely underdeveloped in that field. |
||||
| Frank Bullitt |
Somebody with good words to say about the V50 at last!
I have a huge Volvo scrap yard down the road so replacement parts will se a first-call there; also, my impression from knowing people who drive Volvo's and VAG products is the latter start to go at 80K-ish and then cost big-bucks; the former at 150K. The 'why diesel' is dealt with above but essentially an S60 would be my daily driver and the family-car; the 25-30mpg would make it expensive to run as a petrol doing 14Kpa. S60 D5's seem to be only £500-ish more than the 2.0T which I'd recover in a year at that mileage (40mpg-ish). My research also suggests that when looked-after they can take mega-mileages (like the petrols but unlike some common-rail diesels). When looking at VAG the petrols seem to be up to £2K cheaper - worth considering, but not so the Volvo. Then there is the wallet-raping should Eyebrows reduce the top tax band to 200g/km which is surely going to happen - the D5 keeps me away from that for a while. I've only looked at a 2.0T auto so far so need to try a manual, but it really does seem to be a case of the D5 making sense on all fronts. However, I would agree regarding the V50 - engines do seem to be either rubbish petrols (T5 excepted) or diesels which are pretty uninspiring save the D5. The 2.4i (which is no longer made) does appeal to me as I like the noise and my wife would use it most of the time saving the cost of running it at 28mpg. However, I really do want an S60 truth be told... |
||||
| Jasper |
I find it strange but I would rather have the Skoda on my drive than a Volvo but I would struggle to get past the poor image that the Swede has. I was a passenger yesterday travelling to Manchester and had a good look at the kind of person that drives a Volvo and to a large extent they are male and in their fifties. I'll be there soon enough with out my car adding on the years. P.s. I loved talking about Martin's new choice of car. Even if he has picked the wrong colour.
|
||||
| Frank Bullitt |
Depends if Volvo means: a) Giffer past retirement age with no concept of lane discipline or b) Volvo 850 Estate Touring Car The latter for me. |
||||
| Jasper |
I'd love to remember Volvo's in that way, it was a great time for the BTCC, but that was nearly 15 years ago.
I do understand your desire to own a five cylinder car, they do sound great. |
||||
| Martin |
Thanks Jasper, I enjoyed it as well  
It's the right colour, I'm now 100% convinced! |
||||
| Guitar Zero |
Is this some kind of bizarre-o twilight zone ? 850, saloon and estate, S70, V70 and then P2 S60 and V70 - all powered exclusively by 5 cylinder engines, the majority of which were turbocharged in later models. This was, is and forever will be cool as fuck. Skoda though - wow, got to love those re-heated VW 4 pots, scratchy plastic interiors and the fact that until the VW buy out - were built by prisoners. Can't fault that logic
|
||||
| DaveGibson |
This negative attitude to Volvo is puzzling. In a letter to this week's Autocar, the writer says he can't take the new Noble seriously because it has a Volvo engine (which just happens to produce 650bhp). By that criterion, Aston Martin uses Ford engines but I don't hear much criticism of that. | ||||
| Matt |
That Volvo engine also happens to be by Yamaha (wonder if you need to specify Yamalube? ) so it's hardly likely to be some pig-iron lash-up as that letter write seemed to be insinuating.
|
||||
| gonnabuildabuggy |
Car magazine rated 2nd out of 5 as well a close run 2nd to a 320i and rated it a "diamond in the rough" - good hadling and an engine to die for |