Volvo 340 Reviews from Netherlands

1990 Volvo 340 GL 1.4

Model year1990
Year of manufacture1990
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.4 Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.5 / 10
Distance when acquired60000 kilometres
Most recent distance105000 kilometres
Previous carToyota Starlet

Summary:

Reliable and safe

Faults:

Nothing! Just changed the tyres..

General Comments:

This car is absolutely underrated. It may be ugly, but it is dirt cheap to buy, the safest car in it's class, very comfortable and surprisingly spacious. In the city fuel consumption is not great, but on the highway I managed to get about 6.5 liters per 100 km. I recommend this car to anyone.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 21st August, 2006

1987 Volvo 340 DL 1.7

Year of manufacture1987
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.7 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.3 / 10
Distance when acquired127000 kilometres
Most recent distance164000 kilometres

Summary:

Best car so far!! (It's my first... )

Faults:

Car sputtered sometimes out of the blue. Bobbin, rotor and cables replaced. Very rare, still some little sputtering but luckily never a complete silence any more. Probably the carburetor, it's a bit dirty.

Gasket between the gear-box and differential is covered in oil, but still giving no problems.

Expansion barrel of cooling liquid has cracked.

Springs of the boot lid replaced.

Water leaking at the right mirror suspension.

General Comments:

This car is one of my best purchases. For less than 200 pounds it's a very good car, except for the details described above.

The car is spacious and very robust: it had a collision at the back but it only needed a new tail light. The other car was total loss!

The engine is surprisingly strong, the car accelerates very fast.

The steering, however, is very heavy, even with the smallest tires suited for this car.

The fuel consumption is OK, as is oil usage.

Gear-box handling goes tough but does not creak (yet).

A very good car overall, considering the price I paid for it.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 25th January, 2001

18th May 2006, 06:06

The carb on the 1.4 is a known problem, and my 1985 340 sometimes does the same trick.

Try www.volvo300mania.com; their tech advice is pretty good.

1988 Volvo 340 GL 1.7

Year of manufacture1988
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 1.7 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired100000 kilometres
Most recent distance112000 kilometres
Previous carFord Escort (Mk II)

Summary:

Not bad at all!

Faults:

Exhaust.

Radiator.

Timing belt replaced when buying the car.

New distributor cap (solved starting problem and stall of the engine upon the application of power).

Rear tyres replaced (normal wear).

General Comments:

Plus:

+ Solid build quality, no rust.

+ Pleasure to drive on the highway (comfortable long distance cruising at 120-130 km/h).

+ 1.7 engine sufficiently quick and quiet (much better than the 340 1.4 CVT),

+ Unexpectedly economical with fuel (approx. 13.5 km per liter).

+ Comfy seats (relatively soft compared to new cars like the Volkswagen Passat/Opel Vectra).

Minus:

- Harsh ride on bad roads.

- Heavy downshift to 2nd gear.

- Dashboard rattles when the engine runs idle.

Verdict:

If you don't care about the image and don't want a racing car, this will do the job. Get a 1.7 or 360 to keep up with modern traffic. Considering the amount of 340's still on the road in the Netherlands, production halted over 9 years ago, this car apparently is built to last (in line with the Volvo tradition).

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 23rd September, 2000

5th Jun 2001, 10:28

I totally agree. Although personally, with the bright white paint, extra strips down the side, chrome on the wheel arches and the spoiler, I think it looks rather good. It also has very comfortable seats, I find, and although mine is incredibly inefficient, (22MPG max.) it shifts itself like a cat with the wind up its tail!

I love it!

2nd Mar 2002, 14:44

I also agree, the part about the chrome round the wheel arches, sets the car apart from the rest quite happily.

The fuel economy on mine is about the same as both of yours, around 20 to 25 miles to the gallon.

But oh yes, does it go when it wants to, telling you now that Fiesta XR2 won't try that again!

31st Aug 2003, 02:37

Almost 3 years later and having covered about 140000 km the overall verdict is still quite positive.

Obviously on an older car more things go wrong:

-replacement of broken front coils springs left and right

-left front strut replaced

-brake booster failed and replaced

(the first two items are probably related to the large number of speed bumps found in the Netherlands...)

Actually it still surprises me to see how comfortable this car is. After a drive of several hours in a brand new car (Mazda 323F), my back hurts and it is very clear that the seats are too short and not very pleasant. I was happy to switch to my Volvo and I drove for another 1.5 hours and never had to worry about my back again. Furthermore it seems that the Volvo has more torque and uses less rev's compared to the Mazda, which also contributes to a more relaxing drive.

To be continued...

Average review marks: 7.9 / 10, based on 3 reviews