Volvo S60

king_of_inismac

Hey Guys,

I do a lot of milage, so was thinking of trading up. I want to get a diesel, and was thinking of getting a volvo S60.

Does anyone have any experience with this car. Is the tax/insurance expensive? (I'm almost 27 with a 6 yr NCB).

Also, what MPG could I expect to get?

Thanks,
M

mickdw

The s60 in petrol form is about the most troublesome car on the road. They are very cheap as a result. Diesel should be ok though. The later diesels are good. I think most were 2.4L so tax would be costly.

biko

HonestJohn
Review and mpg

Take with a bit of salt.

The_Conductor

I have a V40- a sister of the S60.
I have the 1.9 ltr turbo diesel, sports version.
Servicing and parts are great- it shares an improbable number of parts with the Ford Mondeo, which is built on the same platform.
In general I have no probs getting around 30 MPG around Dublin and as high as 45-48 MPG on the motorway.
I have the lowered hardened suspension on mine- not a good idea on Irish roads, and something that makes you dread speed bumps with a particular passion (I actively avoid the Strawberry Beds.......)
The low profile tyres cost an arm and a leg to replace- if you're doing high mileage- ignore the way they look lovely and get regular alloys, you'll save a fortune.
One issue which some people with similar cars have reported is with the heating system- it doesn't seem to like demisting the front window. Also the A/C has a temperature gauge on it- which you can safely ignore. Its either on (in which case its arctic) or off (in which case its subsaharan). I had no idea aircon could be so cold......
Leather upholstry is of a very high standard, I get mine valeted every now and then and the leather waxed. Its very comfortable and looks good, and the drivers seat tilts like a sports bucket seat- its nice to play around with it on occasion- it gives a different driving perspective.

If you go to one of the main dealers you can organise a test drive in advance to see if its for you. I'd have no hesitation in recommending you get the S60.

E92

I'd second the Volvo as a good choice, the old S40 is just about the most underrated car there is! In spite of my user name, I'm a big fan of Volvos(enough of one to own the previous generation S40)!

Don't go near Volvo dealers because they'll rape you for servicing. And S60s depreciate as fast as acceleration due to gravity, so make sure you don't pay a whole pile for it. I can't think of anything really bad about Volvos other than the driving experience(and the image for backward people). The road-holding is great, especially in the wet and I like the steering(it at least tells me what it's up to, which is more than can be said for some cars) but it's just not seat of the pants stuff.

@smccarrick: You have the V40 which shares 20% of it's parts with the Mitsubishi Carisma. It was designed long before Ford part bought Volvo 9 years ago.

The current S40/V50 is based on the Ford Focus.

The_Conductor

Cheers E92- I learn a little more every day!

Sandwich

I have the 2.0T S60 and like it a lot.
Superbly comfortable and well kitted out. Drove the 2.4D once and found it much of a muchness to drive but prefered my quieter more refined petrol. Not that the diesel was particularly noisy by diesel standards though (much quieter than a VAG PD for eg. but then I think most are).
Space in the back seats is not great is you are carrying adults - easily bettered by Mondeo, Passat, Avensis, but similiar to a 3 series or last gen A4.
Surprised at the post above re reliability. My own experience and anything I read before buying suggested the were well up in the top quarter on the various ratings for that aspect.
Get about 34mpg from it in mixed driving but Im sure the diesel gives a good bit more.

groupb

smccarrick wrote: »

I have a V40- a sister of the S60.
I have the 1.9 ltr turbo diesel, sports version.
Servicing and parts are great- it shares an improbable number of parts with the Ford Mondeo, which is built on the same platform.
In general I have no probs getting around 30 MPG around Dublin and as high as 45-48 MPG on the motorway.
I have the lowered hardened suspension on mine- not a good idea on Irish roads, and something that makes you dread speed bumps with a particular passion (I actively avoid the Strawberry Beds.......)
The low profile tyres cost an arm and a leg to replace- if you're doing high mileage- ignore the way they look lovely and get regular alloys, you'll save a fortune.
One issue which some people with similar cars have reported is with the heating system- it doesn't seem to like demisting the front window. Also the A/C has a temperature gauge on it- which you can safely ignore. Its either on (in which case its arctic) or off (in which case its subsaharan). I had no idea aircon could be so cold......
Leather upholstry is of a very high standard, I get mine valeted every now and then and the leather waxed. Its very comfortable and looks good, and the drivers seat tilts like a sports bucket seat- its nice to play around with it on occasion- it gives a different driving perspective.

If you go to one of the main dealers you can organise a test drive in advance to see if its for you. I'd have no hesitation in recommending you get the S60.

The v40 is a sister car of the mitsubshi charisma.
The s60 or mondeo had nothing in common with it.

pburns

E92 wrote: »

@smccarrick: You have the V40 which shares 20% of it's parts with the Mitsubishi Carisma. It was designed long before Ford part bought Volvo 9 years ago.
The current S40/V50 is based on the Ford Focus.

Actually a family member used to have Carisma and whilst I disapproved strongly of it's purchase - I hate to admit this - it wasn't nearly as bad as Clarkson et al. would have us believe. Handling was good (although ride a little firm) and quite refined.

(Only!) the interior/exterior and uncomfortable seats let it down:rolleyes::D

Seriously though, the platform itself seemed like it could be the basis for a very good car if some basic ingredients were right. The Carisma was actually a much better car to drive than Corollas/Avensii of the day IMHO... (:eek:!)

E92

pburns wrote: »

Actually a family member used to have Carisma and whilst I disapproved strongly of it's purchase - I hate to admit this - it wasn't nearly as bad as Clarkson et al. would have us believe. Handling was good (although ride a little firm) and quite refined.

(Only!) the interior/exterior and uncomfortable seats let it down:rolleyes::D

Seriously though, the platform itself seemed like it could be the basis for a very good car if some basic ingredients were right. The Carisma was actually a much better car to drive than Corollas/Avensii of the day IMHO... (:eek:!)

Have you gone in/driven that shape S40? If yes, how does it compare to the Carisma?

The S40 is a fine car to drive, the clutch is a bit heavy(which makes stop start traffic and waiting at junctions a bit of a pain), but I drove 2 Avensis recently(the current ones, petrol and diesel, which is meant to be a big improvement on the old one for driving pleasure) and I wanted to get back in the Volvo again, it's much more solid on the road than the Toyotas are(even though they weigh the same).

The S40 looked a lot better inside and out, the inside in particular felt an awful lot better and it turned out to be safer in the NCAP crash tests(don't ask how) than the Carisma too.

The very early ones have a terrible reputation for ride comfort, and that's because they were, but the 00's(facelifts in particular) on were much improved, just stick with 15 inch wheels and standard suspension and it's more than acceptable.

The other flaw was the size, it was just too small to compete against a Mondeo/Avensis etc.

pburns

E92 wrote: »

Have you gone in/driven that shape S40? If yes, how does it compare to the Carisma?

The S40 is a fine car to drive, the clutch is a bit heavy(which makes stop start traffic and waiting at junctions a bit of a pain), but I drove 2 Avensis recently(the current ones, petrol and diesel, which is meant to be a big improvement on the old one for driving pleasure) and I wanted to get back in the Volvo again, it's much more solid on the road than the Toyotas are(even though they weigh the same).

The S40 looked a lot better inside and out, the inside in particular felt an awful lot better and it turned out to be safer in the NCAP crash tests(don't ask how) than the Carisma too.

The very early ones have a terrible reputation for ride comfort, and that's because they were, but the 00's(facelifts in particular) on were much improved, just stick with 15 inch wheels and standard suspension and it's more than acceptable.

The other flaw was the size, it was just too small to compete against a Mondeo/Avensis etc.

No, I've never driven an old-model S40 so don't know how it compares to the Carisma.

You mention that it's fatal flaw was it's size in comparison to the Mondeo etc. Well the new one is even smaller in comparison with the competition! And I don't think that's done it any good in the marketplace. Why the hell couldn't they base it on a Mondeo? Image a curent-Mondeo based Volvo with sexy-ass S60-type styling...:cool:

Hell I'd consider it...

positron

I've been looking at autotrader for S60's for a while and Volvo's interiors looks top class. I tried S80 once and really liked how it feels inside the car. Now, I don't know much about cars, but looking at how all new cars designs seems to be more and more like last years BMW (high boot, narrow rear windows etc), 03-06 Volvos might look dated in comparison in another 2-3 years, IMHO. No big deal though. S60 is def in my short list at the moment (with 156s, Mondeos etc - poor budget - 10k max).

king_of_inismac

Is there any other alternative to the 2.4D engine? I really need to get a diesel, but would prefer to have a smaller engine.

I know people will suggest the S40, but I much prefer the shape of the S60.

How much do you guys think I should expect to pay for a 2002/2003 DIESEL model?

The_Conductor

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Is there any other alternative to the 2.4D engine? I really need to get a diesel, but would prefer to have a smaller engine.

I know people will suggest the S40, but I much prefer the shape of the S60.

How much do you guys think I should expect to pay for a 2002/2003 DIESEL model?

Depends on which packs are installed, the nick and the mileage- but probably around EUR10-12k

galwaytt

Theres one for sale to us locally, and we were impressed by it. However, we bought a Saab 9-3 diesel estate instead - the killer for the SO in the Volvo was it had cloth seats.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The Volve engine drove really, really well, and I know a rep who got a new one and puts huge mileage on it with no problems. Seems inherently less complex than, say the VAG diesels......althought I could be barking mad on that one......

However, it's a fine car, and good value for money - iirc, it's an 01, and was.....7k?

zoemax

I have an S60 D5 and have to say I love it. I drive over 100 miles a day and it is extremely comfortable especially with the leather upholstery. It's also very fast with good acceleration and will criuise easily at anything up to 100mph if you are that way inclined. If you are buying a used model like I did make sure you get a well specked one - leather, auto, winter pack, etc.

I get anythink between 35-40mpg on the commute as I drive a lot on back roads and am constantly braking and accelerating again. On motorway driving I can get up to 45mpg. Insurance is approx. €600 fully comp, tax is almost a grand:mad: Stay away from main delaers as they are expensive and have no semblance of customer care. Parts can be expensive if you have to buy from volvo, a new cat will cost €1k ex. fitting.

Bulbs have a tendabcy to blow but are easily accessible for changing. Boot is suprisingly small.

My last car was an S40 and I have to say the S60 is in a different league. It's not as refined as my mates 530d, but then again his cost over twice what I paid for my S60 for the same year. Used S60's are good value.

The_Conductor

Re: insurance- many insurers have a manufacturer specific discount available for Volvo owners- including Hibernian (think its 2.25%- better than a kick in the teeth.......)

alias no.9

pburns wrote: »

Why the hell couldn't they base it on a Mondeo? Image a curent-Mondeo based Volvo with sexy-ass S60-type styling...:cool:

Hell I'd consider it...

The dream car you desire is already in production and for sale at your friendly local volvo dealer, just ask the kind salesman for one of his latest S80's.

bennyc

mickdw wrote: »

The s60 in petrol form is about the most troublesome car on the road. They are very cheap as a result. Diesel should be ok though. The later diesels are good. I think most were 2.4L so tax would be costly.

I have a 02 petrol s60 got it with 55K miles about 16months ago and now am at 96K miles, never had a bit of trouble with it. I get an average of 28mpg at the moment but can get 34 if going return Sligo - Dublin. I live in the country and would be on a lot of back roads even with the sports suspension I havent had to change anything. I was going to trade up but instead am holding onto it and the wife is trading hers instead.
If I had the choice I would buy a diesel for the amount of miles I do but if you are not doing massive miles I woud recommend getting a petrol. Only issue I have is the kids are getting bigger and rear legroom isnt great. Go for an se with all the bells and whistles and you should find a bargain.

TychoCaine

zoemax wrote: »

Bulbs have a tendabcy to blow but are easily accessible for changing. Boot is suprisingly small.

So I'm not the only one! I'm changing a bulb at least once a month on my S80 (longer and wider than the S60 but most mechanical/electrical parts are shared). Last week alone I changed a side light, dipped beam and a rear light.

The_Conductor

TychoCaine wrote: »

So I'm not the only one! I'm changing a bulb at least once a month on my S80 (longer and wider than the S60 but most mechanical/electrical parts are shared). Last week alone I changed a side light, dipped beam and a rear light.

Its the same on the V40. Point to note is that you probably need to get them refocused after you change the bulb. Its a doddle to change the bulb, but the beam will very likely need to be recalibrated.

gibbon75

smccarrick wrote: »

Its the same on the V40. Point to note is that you probably need to get them refocused after you change the bulb. Its a doddle to change the bulb, but the beam will very likely need to be recalibrated.

No refocusing needed if you use a genuine Volvo H7

gibbon75

bennyc wrote: »

I live in the country and would be on a lot of back roads even with the sports suspension I havent had to change anything.

Trust me you are one of the few lucky ones

king_of_inismac

I'm torn between the petrol and diesel models. Every two weeks I drive across the country, but mostly I'll be using the car for cummuting.

Total milage would be 15000-20000 per year.

What would people recommend? The petrol model seems to be considerably cheaper.

The_Conductor

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I'm torn between the petrol and diesel models. Every two weeks I drive across the country, but mostly I'll be using the car for cummuting.

Total milage would be 15000-20000 per year.

What would people recommend? The petrol model seems to be considerably cheaper.

Much better mileage from the diesel, along with cheaper roadtax and much better resale residuals. You'll be doing 400-500 miles a week, which is not inconsiderable. Both are good cars, but personally I'd get the diesel.

Sandwich

Depends whether you are buying new or used.

At a guess, if buying used, the petrol will cost you less overall (cheaper to buy, cheaper road tax, you're not really doing enough miles to claw back the saving at the pumps.
If buying new (from July), the diesel might work out better.

crosstownk

I've driven S60 D5, T5, 2.0T manual and 2.0T auto. Of them all, the T5 was best fun (obviously) but all things considered, the 2.0 auto was probably the best all rounder (and a bit thirsty too). If I was to consider an S60, I'd probably opt for the 2.0T. That said, the most economical was the D5.

E92

The D5 would pay for itself in no time, average fuel consumption for the 2.0T is 29.7 mpg, compared to 43.5 mpg for the D5.

That makes the D5 a whopping 46% more economical than the petrol:eek:!

Usually diesels are around 20-30% more frugal so that is really an enormous difference.

Sandwich

E92 wrote: »

The D5 would pay for itself in no time, average fuel consumption for the 2.0T is 29.7 mpg, compared to 43.5 mpg for the D5.

That makes the D5 a whopping 46% more economical than the petrol:eek:!

Usually diesels are around 20-30% more frugal so that is really an enormous difference.

Not necessarily so.
For example:
D5 is E8000 more than the 2.0T (like for like).
Roughly, doing 15000miles per year, would cost an extra E800/year at the pumps. But save you E250/yr in road tax. So net E550/yr saving is quite a few years before you claw back the initial E8000 outlay.



But
- Do less than 15k/yr and it gets worse, do more it improves.
- You long do you plan to keep the car, sell it sooner, you will recover more of the premium on the diesel, keep it longer the more it will approach the used price of the petrol version.
- buying new or used
- buying now or after new tax rates. Post July helps the road tax element in favour of the diesel.

The op would need to do these calculations himself depending on his needs to really get the right answer.

E92

I wouldn't advise anyone to buy a new S60. The depreciation on them is enormous. I'd suggest one that's 4 years old or more. I don't know why I got it into my head that the OP was buying a used one, but if the OP is buying a new one then I would advise against it and instead that the OP buys an Audi A4 2.0 TDI 143 bhp(or better still 170 bhp) or BMW 320d in July. The S60 has very high emissions compared to rivals(I know it has 5 rather than 4 cylinders and anything is better than 4 cylinders as far as I'm concerned but these days 6 cylinder rivals like a BMW 325i/325d or A4 2.7 TDI are more CO2 friendly than the Volvo and you're getting more smoothness because of the extra cylinder and a better noise(same reason) too), and most importantly, Volvo have a brand new one coming out either next year or the year after, which will have a lot of new more CO2 friendly engines(sadly Volvo are ditching a lot of their lovely sounding 5 cylinder engines in favour of boring old 4 cylinders to achieve this though:(), like the 2.0D in the S40 and S80 for a start.

My comment that the "D5 would pay for itself in no time" was made on the basis that we were talking about used ones, so my apologies for not making that clear till now.

In any event the D5 would offer superior performance to the petrol, 185 bhp and in particular 295 lb ft rather than 177 lb ft of torque means that the oil burner will offer a fair bit more performance. Interestingly Volvo still sell the D5 that was originally fitted to the S60(the current D5 is considerably more powerful than the one that was there initially) as a 2.4D in the UK but for some reason don't sell it here. One imagines that with the new VRT rules that they will re-introduce this engine again for Ireland.

liger

Hi, I've been looking at the s60's for a while now (2nd hand) but the only ones falling into my price range are high millage 102,000miles plus. should i steer clear of these or are they likely to be okay?

The_Conductor

liger wrote: »

Hi, I've been looking at the s60's for a while now (2nd hand) but the only ones falling into my price range are high millage 102,000miles plus. should i steer clear of these or are they likely to be okay?

Depending on the engine- likely to be fine- but the residuals will be atrocious.

TychoCaine

Atrocious residuals are a good thing when you're the buyer and not the seller. S60s and S80s are designed to be mile munchers, so the high mileage would not worry me too much as long as it's been serviced regularly. The only major weaknesses are the automatic transmission and the throttle body on the petrol cars. The auto box is a rare option on the S60 and the throttle body is a acknowleged issue so will be repaired by the dealer for free (a software update fixes it) if it fails. It's a big car so it chews through suspension bushes, track rod ends and drop links, but they're cheap enough to replace.

Tabnabs

TychoCaine wrote: »

So I'm not the only one! I'm changing a bulb at least once a month on my S80 (longer and wider than the S60 but most mechanical/electrical parts are shared). Last week alone I changed a side light, dipped beam and a rear light.

I keep hearing this one but I'm driving a year with my S40 and have yet to change one bulb (reaches for wooden surface). I test drove a V50 (2007) 1.6 and it was horrendous in terms of power. Big disappointment that.

TychoCaine

Dyflin wrote: »

I keep hearing this one but I'm driving a year with my S40 and have yet to change one bulb (reaches for wooden surface).

The S40/V50 is built on the sale platform as the Ford Focus, Mazda 3 and a half dozen other cars, so the only thing it has in common with the S60/S80/V70 etc, is the name badge. All the electrics, including the lights are Ford parts, so be glad they didn't replicate this Volvo peculiarity.

liger

sorry, was looking at the 2.0 petrol, seen an 02 one for 7k and an 2,0se for 8k

The_Conductor

Providing it has a good service record, and the timing belt replaced etc- you've not a lot to loose at that price. If it has low profile tyres they can cost an arm and a leg to replace (plus mileage on them is a bit crap- say about 12k per change).

S.

liger

thanks for the info.

trabpc

I had a S40 for 4 years sold it last year with 180,000miles on it. It was a 98 1.9D - D for dead. very slow in the early gears but quit nippy on the motorway. never once let me down. but was fond of bulbs- front rear. changed a few arms and bushings over the 4 yrs but to be expected as i regulary pulled 2 tonne with it(house building) I would definately reccomend the Diesel.. I average abou 44mpg without trailer. Bougt an 02 530D to replace it and incredibly its doing around 47mpg

TychoCaine

trabpc wrote: »

I had a S40 for 4 years sold it last year with 180,000miles on it. It was a 98 1.9D - D for dead. very slow in the early gears but quit nippy on the motorway. never once let me down. but was fond of bulbs- front rear. changed a few arms and bushings over the 4 yrs but to be expected as i regulary pulled 2 tonne with it(house building) I would definately reccomend the Diesel.. I average abou 44mpg without trailer. Bougt an 02 530D to replace it and incredibly its doing around 47mpg

The 98 S40 was built in Holland on the Mitsubishi Carisma platform. They're not really comparible to the bigger Volvos developed in-house.

The 2.0 pertrol engine is a 5 cylinder turbo unit and is also in the S80. You'll see fuel consumption in the low thirties on motorway driving and 20mpg around town.On the flip side, the turbo makes it a very quick car. Regarding other running costs, servicing is cheaper than an equivalent Merc, BMW or Audi, but be prepared for a fright if you've never owned a car of this size before. Even cheap tyres are €100 each, and a timing belt change is €600. Everything is hooked into the ECU so there's a lot of stuff you just have to go to a Volvo dealer for.

The SE model is worth the money, and try and find one with the winter pack. You get a full leather interior, headlamp wash/wipe, a 9 speaker stereo system with a seperate amp, heated seats, cruise control and other nice bits.

The_Conductor

If you do a lot of long distance driving on good roads- try to get one with the sports suspension too

Note: you may need a session with a chiropractor if you hit a pothole though

Sandwich

You should do better than low thirties on the motorways, unless you are silly about it. I find I get 36-38mpg, keeping it to 120 and not excessively braking or crazy acceleration. When driving around Dublin I get 25-28, but none of that would be during rush hours. It averages out at about 32 for me with half the miles donw on the open road (mainly motorway) and half around town.
Put your foot down tho and it does start to drink heavily.

The 2.0T is quick to accelerate, but refined at it - which suits the car I think. The turbo is very smooth and doesnt have the jolting kick of some cruder higher pressure ones. You could mistake it for being non turbo, but you still know the power is there and you would probably guess it to be a 2.2-2.5L natural breather if you didnt know.

coin

I've a 2003 2.4D5 now for 5 months and am very very happy with it. I've put 9,000 miles on the engine since and i've only replaced 2 bulbs!!! Seriously though it's a way nicer place to be than my previous 2004 Saab 9-3. Try to get a model with good spec. I got cream leather interior, cruise contol etc and haven't looked back.
The best part though is my fuel consumption.........average between 51.2 and 51.8mpg on a mix of back roads and motorways.Can't ask for much better.
I picked mine up in Belfast so might be no harm in looking about, just bring a mechanic with you!!