Volvo V40

I'll hunt you down and do something, not sure what yet, if you buy a Saab 9-3. A Saab 9-5 however, not so bad. About a billion better than a V40.

If you're looking at spending ~£3k, I'd seriously consider a V50 for your short list. They're actually pretty good.
 
V50s are good but tiny. Also rather uneconomical. My mum averaged 25MPG in a 2.4 :/

Passat is a good shout although you'd cut your wrists due to boredom after 30 seconds.
 
Yeah I'd much rather the 1.8T too, purely because I'm a sucker for twin pipes! But they do hold a higher premium over the 2.0

No way can he be getting 36 out of the 3.0 V6 Quattro!!! Unless all he does it 56 on the motorway 24/7
 
Last edited:
Nice find, and not too far from me.

Needing another car at the moment anyway, might go look at this...

Do it, then let us know how it actually looks compared to the eBay pics :p

Yeah I'd much rather the 1.8T too, purely because I'm a sucker for twin pipes! But they do hold a higher premium over the 2.0

No way can he be getting 36 out of the 3.0 V6 Quattro!!! Unless all he does it 56 on the motorway 24/7

I'd imagine that a 70MPH cruise wouldn't be far off that figure in the real world.

Obviously round town it won't be great, but the 2.0 N/A isn't great either. It has all of the downsides of a thirsty engine, with none of the upsides of the power said engines usually create. A guy at work had one (in saloon form), he struggled to see mid 20's average out of his 2.0.
 
The 1.8 in the S/V40 is not a very good engine. One of the very early DI engines and suffers from coking in the head.

There are two 1.8's, the 1.8 (which is a Volvo engine IIRC) and the 1.8i which is a Mitsubishi engine. The former doesn't coke up like the latter. My mum has the latter, and runs a tank for super through it now and again and it's been fine for the 30 months or so she's had it. Averages 43 mpg for her although I would agree, avoid the engine at all costs.
 
Back
Top Bottom