Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Volvo S40



  • I test drove the 2001 Volvo S40 with Leather/Audio Package, Wood-Effect Package and Silver Metallic paint . . . the dealer told me that $25,989 was the best they could do for me plus an additional $595 for the spoiler for a total of $26,584. Does that sound like a fair price? Has anyone else found a better deal?
  • My wife and i recently test drove a 2001 s40. We loved the s40 it was fun to drive. Then we went down the road to another volvo dealership and they had a 2000 s70 that had been a fleet vehicle. It had only 8000 miles on it and was loaded inside (sunroof,leather,cd,climate control,and power seats)all for $25,000. My question to everyone is which car is the best deal and better car in the long run.
  • My husband and I test drove the 2001 Volvo S40 the other day and got a lease price as follows: $1767 down (includes first month payment & taxes), $369/mo for a 4 yr lease, no service included (we have to pay for all service, including oil changes). The car has leather seats, sun roof, audio pkg, heated seats. Is this a good deal or should we keep looking???? We also test drove the 2001 BMW 325i and could have that for a 3 yr lease at $478/mo, with $1600 down (includes first month payment & taxes), this includes all service & oil changes, and it has the leather seats, moon roof, cd pkg, etc. Help!
  • oolerooler Posts: 1
    I am in the market for a vehicle. It seems the Passat gets better ratings, but my wife insists on a Volvo S40. Any professional recommendations?
  • r34r34 Posts: 178
    I will pick Passat. Although I found the S40 seems to be faster and smoother than Passat after I test drove it, I heard that S40 is not as reliable as the traditional Volvo. It is more liked a Japanese sedan. Its price can be expensive even though you just add sunroof package and CD player. The price will be closed to an A4.

    If I a Passat, I will spend ~$800 to extend the bumper-bumper warranty to 5-6 years (I don't want to keep the car for 10 years).

    Pro: 1. Quicker
    2. It did not require premium fuel in 2000
    but I am not sure if the 2001 model needs
    3. Volvo image
    4. Safty-oriented
    5. Automatic climate control
    6. Power antenna
    7. normal/sport mode
    8. less weight (good for me but bad for some)
    9. Larger glove box and better cup holder
    10. better security system
    11. better bumper-bumper warranty
    12. Turning circle is smaller (good for U-
    turn ??)

    Pro: 1. Built-in fog lights
    2. standard headlight washers in 2001.5 ?
    3. updated model (2001.5)
    4. Tilt and telescope steering wheel
    5. Standard traction control
    6. more interior and trunk room
    7. nicer plastic inside (I think)
    8. 1 touch AUTO up and down windows on
    driver and passenger side. You can even
    use the key to control windows/sunroof
    up/down ! (S40 doesn't have any 1 touch
    auto up window. It has only 1 touch auto
    down driver side window. No 1 touch AUTO
    up/down at passenger side)
    9. more rear legroom
    10. If you option for leather, Passat has
    better leather than S40.
    11. better powertrain warranty
    12. You can choose 5-speed or automatic
    trans. Tiptronic is much more fun than
    13. Better look.
    14. Engine and components similar to A4's.
    15. Full size alloy wheel spare tire.
    16. Sunroof package gives you alloy wheels.
    17. A little bit more sporty feel
    18. It is easier to add a remote starter to
    its security system.
  • I just finished replacing my second S40 low beam headlight bulb -- car is <1yr old has about 9,300 miles on it. This is a great car, EXCEPT, it is almost impossible to replace these bulbs because there isn't enough clearance behind the headlight assemblies to get the rubber boots off and the bulbs in and out.

    Has anyone else had this problem.
  • Until Dec 31, 2000, Volvo had a special lease promotion on the S40. The S40 lease price you quoted, of 369/month for 4 years with 1767 down, is much higher than the recent promotion. I got my S40 loaded for 349/month with 0 down (before taxes). If you're not in a hurry, I would wait for Volvo to offer another incentive program. Currently I saw a lease deal on the Volvo S60, which will still come in much less than a BMW. If you are looking at BMW, and money is no object (the price you quoted is 478/month), I think the BMW is a better car. Price-wise, comparably equipped, the BMW is definitely in a higher price class, though.
  • jchoejchoe Posts: 1
    Does anyone know if snow cables can be safely put onto an S40? According to a dealer, there is not enough clearance for snow chains and they need to put on a specially mounted system onto the wheels that will cost more than $300!
  • I am in the midst of closing a deal on a 2001 S40. (I need to sell my truck first). The lease deal I am looking at is as follows:

    Fully loaded (every option, bell and whistle)
    Capitalized cost - $28,300
    $3000 drive-off
    48 month term
    Monthly lease rate - $350 (includes tax)

    Is this a good deal? The cap cost is $500 off MSRP.

    Thanks in advance,
  • I've got a 2000 S40 with 20,000 miles; it's 13 mos old. The front passenger headlight has burnt out 3 times so far, with increasing frequency.

    There's a "retro fit" for this problem; something about too much amperage (or something) going to the lights hence they burn out.

    Unfortunately, the retro fit (on my car) has also failed. After the retro fit fix, my passenger headlight burnt out in about 10 days, but the crowning achievement was that the other headlight also burnt out two days ago, leaving me with no low beam lights whatsoever (bright still works).

    I'm afraid that this experience, including bringing the car in to the dealership three times this month is starting to sour me on the car. I shoulda kept the Honda...

    The Volvo is currently at the dealership where the stumped service dept is trying to figure out what's going on.
  • amyesamyes Posts: 2
  • Was gonna get a loaded Jetta but got a base 2001 S40, paid 22,600. with 7100 miles (salesmanagers car) I love it, wife misses the 97 A4 Q 1.8T Auto (she misses the styling), this car doesn't have the looks but I enjoy driving it. I like the handling, power, cabin is quiet, better ride, more solid feel, cold starts in A.M. fine, fan isn't noisey, great 5spd auto, safety. Have not taken it in for service but here are the problems so far, pulls to the right, driver door popped open going over RR tracks!!, Brakes sometimes kinda grind, visibility out the back window, some of the interior parts and exterior seem flimsy, trunk space, I installed Spike Spiders for winter driving. Avg 25 mpg so far- Mtn driving. I would recommend one at this time.
  • missybmissyb Posts: 1
    I have brought my S40 in because of the headlights burning out very quickly-the dealer replaced them saying it was a fault in the headlight itself-i didn't pay anything but I have had other problems-the brakes, sunroof and check engine light-i wouldn't recommend buying this car I would get a Audi A4 or 325i
    Wish I had
  • Hi all,
    I am planning to buy a second car. I test drove a 2001 Volvo S40 and liked it. I thought it was a bit smoother than the Accord which I have( no doubt that the Accord is an excellent car). I am a bit confused as to which car I should buy. I have 3 options, The Volvo S40/Volkswagen Jetta 1.8T/ 2001 Toyota RAV4.

    Can anyone suggest me as to which of this three would be a best buy?

    Thanks in advance
  • I was faced with the Jetta or S40, If you must have AWD then the Rav, I put Spider Spikes on my S40 for the winter, the Jetta is a VW product, I had the same 1.8T engine in my 97 Audi the motor is good, but I didn't want another VW product, We drove a couple Jetta's and S40's--after that I easily made the call.
  • Thanks for the response from Jim. I had almost decided on S40, but had a second thought because of its price which is higher than the Jetta or the Rav4. I wanted to reconfirm on the reliability of the S40. I read the reviews about Rav4 and felt that the mileage was not as per the sticker. Hence having a second thought of even considering it. I would be left out to choose between the S40 or the Jetta.

    Kindly help.

  • nowakj66nowakj66 Posts: 709
    My wife and I bought a 2000 Volvo S40 last February. It now has 20,000 miles and has proved to be a fun well performing car.

    We have had more than our share of troubles I would say.

    All cherrfully fixed by our dealer in Ohio. But you have to take the time to bring the car in . . . . .

    - The most severe was a power brake malfunction. Pretty odd for a brand that prides itself on safety. Powerbrakes would not work for the first 10 minutes of operation of the car.

    - the radio / cd has at times refused to play or fades all the way out. It seems the volume knob stopped working. Took it to the dealer and they could not find the problem. :-(

    - several problems solved by new / updated computer codes - check engine light, etc.

    - air conditioner thermostat giving out

    - door seal coming unglued from the metal

    - cupholder in the rear not working right

    Of course I am interested in any solutions owners and dealers have run across for these problems.

    I also wonder if the 2001 models are any less troublesome? The S60 and V40 have sort of caught my eye as replacements for my 1992 Prelude. But if this experience is typical of Volvos I am not sure that the cars are worth the trouble.

    Hondas may be bland -- but at least they are less troublesome for the same or less money.
  • I test drove a S40 today and is thinking about buying it. However, I've been reading some of the comments concerning problems with the 2000 S40. The few that stands out includes: headlights burning out consistently, bad gas mileage for a 4-cyl, engine light comes on, and bad service from the dealership.

    I've always owned a Japanese car and is looking for something a little more solid and safer. That's why I was looking for a Volvo. In fact, I'm still debating either the S40 or a 2dr Accord V6.

    Does anybody have any suggestions or comments on what I should do?
  • I, too, have had issues with the low beam head lamps burning out consistently on my 2000 S40. There is an upgraded' bulb the dealer has on-hand issued by Volvo that should correct the problem. I have had the lamps on my S40 changed at least 4 times, all within a 9 month period. If the head lamps burning out were my only problem I would be happy. The car is on its way to another dealer, as a trade-in, toward a truck this time. There is a myriad of problems I have had from the head lamps, to the drivers seat coming loose, to the front suspension loosening up while driving, to the check engine light, to the radio..... I have given up on the car- period! Too bad, my wife's 2000 S70 is a great car. No problems at all with almost 25K on the odometer. If only Volvo could learn from there previous models the S40 may not have been a bad vehicle.
  • Just wanted to present the opinion of a more satisfied customer.

    I bought a 2000 s40 in 12/00: 9K miles (had been dealer loaner) w leather/sunroof pkg for $20.6K. Perhaps could have paid $20K if I was a hard core negotiator. But, I was happy to get the interest rate benefits - 8% from dealer, less than my bank would give on a used - of a new car and to avoid some of the usual new care charges - no destination, advertising, registration, etc.

    I've only added about 1K miles but have not yet experienced any of the problems reported above.

    First impressions: pleased -- though for mostly superficial reasons.
    1) I like the styling if only because it's not a Jetta. LA is overrun with the Volkswagons, and they're attractive, but I enjoy the meager amount of individuality the s40 provides.
    2) The driving experience is pretty good. I am a commuter rather than a sophisticated driver, but it has pep (it's easy to pass), handles on the sporty side of average, has excellent brakes, a good climate control system and the seats are comfy. Negatives here include a mediocre radio, poor blind spot visibility and limited rear seat leg room (but I'm short, so that'll help riders).
    3) Safety is a priority for me. Without having to do extensive homework, the Volvo name suggests that reasonable care has been exercised in designing the car. It's small, but has front and side air bags (would have liked the head bags issued in '01) and I'm placing faith in Volvo that the cage and other structural elements are decent.
    4) The 4yr/48K mile warrantee is better than VW, Accord and some other competitors.

    All in all, I prefer the image to the Accords and VW's I was also considering. I recognize that it might be hard to justify its higher price, but those cars aren't cheap either when you add leather (which I love) and a sunroof (which I could care less about).

    In terms of comparing it to low end Audi's and BMW's, I think its hard a strech to put it in the same class as those cars. On the other hand, it's cheaper and safety is probably equal.
  • whodeywhodey Posts: 19
    Long story made short... was torn between a 2000 S40 and a 2000 CR-V. I went for practical and bought the CR-V. I don't regret the purchase, but I am always thinking about trading in my wife's car, giving her the CR-V and buying an S40 or S60 for myself.

    Here's my question, I read in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that the 2003 version of the S40 will share a platform with the Ford Focus. Has anyone else heard this nonsense? In my opinion, that would be a disaster for the S40.
  • rjsenrjsen Posts: 30
    The Focus is a Euro-bred small sedan. It's handling has been widely praised. Why would the S40 sharing its platform be a bad thing? You are aware that the S40 currently shares its platform with some Mitsubishi, right? Anyway, the platforms are pretty similar in terms of their suspension, drivetrain, handling, etc., so I doubt you'd even have noticed if you hadn't heard something.

    IMO, using the Focus and Mondeo platforms on lower-end Volvos and Jags is a great idea. These platforms have a great reputation, so it's a good way for Ford to save money without there being any detriment to the consumer. Just because they're using the base platform of a cheaper Ford doesn't mean that the luxury features normally found on these cars will disappear, and they may in fact improve since less of the cost of the car will go toward recovering platform development costs.
  • whodeywhodey Posts: 19
    You've got some valid points but I just don't trust Ford. I've always felt that if you want to lease a car it's ok to go domestic. If you want to buy a car and keep it for an extended period you are much better served to go Japanese. Being built on the same platform won't stop me from test driving the S40 again.
  • Hello Volvo Owners:

    I'm going to be leasing a new car later this year after my current lease expires, and I'm debating between an S40 and a larger car with fewer safety features, such as a Crown Victoria. I've always wanted to buy a Volvo because of their devotion to safety, but until the S40 came to the U.S., I haven't been able to afford one.

    My main concern with the S40, at least in terms of safety, is the overall size of the car. It weighs only 2,800 pounds compared to a Crown Vic which weighs 4,000 pounds. The CV only has dual front airbags for safety (no side airbags, no head airbags, no WHIPS system) and ABS is an option. What seems to make the CV so safe is its enormous size. I wonder in a head-on collision between a CV and an S40, which driver would be more severely injured?

    Other than the size issue, I like the S40 much better. It has FWD (better in the snow), much better gas mileage, better handling, easier to park and maneuver, more comfortable seats, more attractive styling. It's just that most safety experts say that bigger is always better. If a 4,000 pound object collides with a 2,800 pound object, the 4,000 pound object will likely come away with less they say anyway.

    I know that the S40 got very good ratings from the government agencies that test car safety in Europe, but does anyone know when or if NHTSA (here in the U.S.) is going to crash test an S40?

    Like I said, everything except the overall size of the S40 is telling me to buy it over the Crown Vic. Thanks a lot for any advice you guys might have.
  • there are many other cars out there that do well in crash tests and have more features than the crown vic for about the same money as the Volvo....these include the VW Passat, Toyota Avalon XL (check the NHTSA site on this one...did very well), Subaru Legacy/Outback, which have the added feature of 4 wheel drive and did well in crash tests, Honda Accord EX V6 (a bargain, and now has standard side airbags and VSC), Infiniti G20 (less money, about the same length as the S40, many more features), Nissan Maxima. These are all good cars, reliable, and safe. My personal opinion about the Crown Vic up against the S40 is that the CV will win every time. It is the only car still that is NOT unitbody construction (steel I-Beam construction), weighs over 4000 pounds with payload, and is well over 200 inches in length. The S40 is safe against similar cars in Europe, but is less than 3000 pounds, less than 180 inches long, less width than a bigger car...your body is right up against the side of the door...., etc. BUT, if it was only Crown Vics you were up against, you might do OK....It's those damn SUVs that are the real problem. They'll run right over you.
  • Thanks for your input, Joel. I'm also planning to check out several other cars in addition to the Crown Vic and S40 (Chevy Impala, Accord V6, Ford Taurus, Subaru Outback...)

    I really like the styling of the S40 over the Crown Vic, but my biggest concern these days is safety, so I may end up choosing a bigger car than the S40.

    I agree about those SUV's though. Those things should be classified as "light trucks" and anyone who buys one should have to go through some sort of advanced training so that they know how to handle them in all driving conditions. I see way too many SUV's out there being driven as though they were Porsche 911's or morons if you ask me.

    Thanks again for your input...cheers.
  • I forgot to mention that we took a trip to Disney (Florida) the week before Christmas 2001, and rented a brand new (only had a few hundred miles on it) Mercury Grand Marquis. It had cloth interior, bench seat, but most of the other options available, including adjustable pedals and Skid Control. We drove 10 hours each way, and never once did I feel uncomfortable, or that the car was out of control (floaty, weak brakes). There were so many on the road to Florida that we traveled "underneath the radar" so to speak, and cruised between 70-80. Mileage was 25mpg. I was very pleased with the Grand Marquis, more than I thought I could be. I don't think I'd want to own one (too young still, and would be a tight squeeze in the garage), but would not hesitate to rent one again.
  • Thanks, I'm actually planning to rent a Grand Marquis or Crown Vic in a month or two for an entire weekend to see what I think about the handling. They've apparently made a lot of handling improvements in both of those cars beginning with the 98 model year. And there's a handling and performance package that's available for about $900 as an option on either car (stiffer shocks, stiffer stabilizer bar, different tires, different rear axle ratio).

    I really like the looks of the S40 over the CV or GM (both interior and exterior), and I'm only 38, so I definitely don't fall into the CV/GM demographic group. But the overall size of the CV makes me think it would do better in a serious crash over the S40.

    Anyway, this is a Volvo forum and not a CV/GM forum, so I better shut up before I wear out my welcome here! ;)
  • lancerfixerlancerfixer Posts: 1,308
    You might be the first person in the history of the world to cross-shop these two vehicles...:-)
    I'd like to second the comments about renting a Grand Marquis. I rented a one a while back, and for what I used it for (highway cruising) it was the most comfortable car I'd driven up to that point. It did have leather...I'm not sure if it had the handling package, but it did have traction control. I wouldn't call it a sports sedan by any means, but its size belies its handling prowess. I wouldn't buy one, either-- I'm 26-- but I've never rented a nicer car.

    Now, back on topic: I like the S40 a lot, but I really can't justify spending the same money as a Passat for such a small, cramped car. I'd look at a Passat, too; it's VERY safe, particularly the 2001.5 models, which now have side curtain airbags, but bigger than the S40, but not so bulky as the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis.
  • Thanks for the input. A friend of mine at work who owns an Audi and a BMW also suggested the Passat, so I think I'll have to add that car to my list. He's also trying to steer me towards the Audi A4, but we'll see. The A4 has lots of safety features and great performance, but it's no larger than an S40 (and costs about $1,000 more).

    I was wondering why nobody picked up on my cross-shopping a Crown Vic and an S40 until now. I thought I was going to get some serious laughs, considering there are some major differences between the two cars and who their target market is.

    I guess the bottom line for me is safety and comfort. I live in the Wash, DC metro area, and our traffic is ranked second worst in the country (LA is #1). We also have way too many aggressive and/or stupid drivers around here, so the probability of a serious accident is somewhat high (at least in my opinion).

    Perhaps another option would be to look at a used S60 or S80?

    Anyway, thanks for the advice. I'm heading over to the Passat section now...see ya.
This discussion has been closed.