Volvo 460 Reviews from Norway

1991 Volvo 460 1.7 petrol

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1991
First year of ownership2009
Most recent year of ownership2010
Engine and transmission 1.7 petrol Manual
Performance marks 2 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 2 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.3 / 10
Distance when acquired210000 miles
Most recent distance220000 miles

Summary:

Volvo's greatest mistake, avoid at all costs

Faults:

Erratic engine temperature gauge/sensor.

Alternator replaced 2009, 2010.

Clutch replaced 2009.

Coolant leak.

Engine sub-frame rusted from the inside and snapped off.

Very prone to rust.

General Comments:

First of all, this is not a real Volvo, but a DAF car mated with a french engine. Very low quality, and I would say Volvo's greatest fiasco.

It has very comfortable seats and the factory sound system was very good. Excellent cold starting abilities. Excellent car for long distance driving if it suddenly doesn't break down and leave you stranded.

The engine is weak and the gearbox is abysmal. Very bad traction on ice and snow with good tires, due to very little ground pressure on the front wheels. Very prone to breakdowns and component failure. Rusts even worse than a Japanese car.

Repairing this car is like throwing money away. Something new will always need attention and fixing.

I was lucky and had a total breakdown while driving on a snowy road. The engine subframe rusted out from the inside and snapped off, leaving the engine tilted down on one side. This was the end of a disgusting car.

Repair costs for the year I had this car could have bought me a real nice proper Volvo.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 23rd October, 2012

2nd Nov 2012, 19:30

210,000 miles and you expect a car not to have parts needing replacement? That's a bit unrealistic.

84% of owners reviewing the Volvo 460 on this site would happily buy another one, and do not consider it to be "Volvo's biggest mistake."

Ignore this review, the owner bought a beaten up, thrashed and worn out 460, and wants to blame his misfortune on the makers of the car... not the careless previous owners who messed it up for him.

9th Nov 2012, 19:30

I am the original poster, and I can assure you that this car was taken care of, it has been in the family since it was new. It had a full service history when I got it.

A sturdy construction like that of true Volvos gives longevity and few repairs. The 400-series is a different breed, it feels like an old carrot when you drive it.

Don't listen to people like the one above. If you want a good car that you can keep for the rest of your life, buy a 200/700/900-series Volvo. If you want more comfort, go for the 850 - V70N.

The 400-series is a joke, you will regret buying it.

10th Nov 2012, 12:27

I've got to agree and disagree. These 400's are not quite as solid as 'proper' full size Volvo's, but are usually better than their competition.

I own a few modern Volvo's, and have driven/owned many of the older ones too. However, there are very good 400's out there. My 1992 GLT is one of them, with great black metallic paintwork and very little rust, as well as 169,000 miles on the clock. I have owned it since 110,000 miles, and it hasn't missed a beat.

Get this - last month I took the car out of retirement (it's been parked at the back of my Dads barn for 6 (YES, SIX) years covered in dust with 3 flat tyres, etc). I put a new battery on it, pumped up the tyres and it started first time! Excellent car. Even better - I jumped in it and drove it to the MOT station where it just needed a puncture repairing and a bulb to pass!!! You just can't get better than that! So, basically, not all 400's are bad, some are excellent!

1996 Volvo 460 2.0i

Model year1996
Year of manufacture1996
First year of ownership2010
Most recent year of ownership2011
Engine and transmission 2.0i Manual
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.8 / 10
Distance when acquired112000 kilometres
Most recent distance150000 kilometres
Previous carHonda Legend

Summary:

Reliable Swedish quality

Faults:

Starter changed at 135 000.

Transmission blew at 150 000.

General Comments:

This is one of the most reliable cars I have ever had. The car was whipped every day since I bought it, and nothing ever broke. I drove this car with my caravan across southern Norway, with the pedal to the metal ALL the time. It didn't even overheat. The 2 litre engine is powerful, considering it's a car from 1996.

Maybe a bit soft on the suspension, like all Volvos from the 90s.

The original stereo is rubbish, and needs to be changed.

The transmission literally blew at 150 000, with sprockets and oil flying everywhere. I don't blame the car, since I used 4 sets of tyres the 11 months I had the car. But still worth every penny.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 19th February, 2012

8th Nov 2012, 12:42

This car has nothing to do with Swedish quality and the Volvo brand. These cars are of inferior quality; everyone who has owned a proper Volvo knows this.

1993 Volvo 460 GL 2.0 injection (B20F)

Model year1993
Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership2006
Most recent year of ownership2007
Engine and transmission 2.0 injection (B20F) Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 6 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.3 / 10
Distance when acquired182500 kilometres
Most recent distance187500 kilometres
Previous carOpel Vectra

Summary:

It's a cheap 2nd hand car, and seems to provide great value for money

Faults:

I know that the engine was changed for a new one at 64000 km.

There has been some repair on the brakes, due to rust, on norwegian salty roads.

It was difficult to start in cold weather and high moisture, but this is OK after I changed the rotor and it's cover.

The lambda sond had to be replaced due to high CO emissions (> 0.65 %).

General Comments:

It's fun to drive due to the quick 2.0 litre engine, and the handling is good.

On snow and ice it is very good, and will climb hills where it's not possible to go with other cars like my Vectra B.

The seats are very comfortable, even when compared to brand new cars of today.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 11th March, 2007

1995 Volvo 460 2.0i

Year of manufacture1995
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 2.0i Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Dealer Service marks 4 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.8 / 10
Distance when acquired160000 kilometres
Most recent distance166000 kilometres
Previous carToyota Camry

Summary:

I've got the car very cheap from a local dealer who gave me a good price

Faults:

The passenger door is about to fall off. Parking lights are failing, and the door to the trunck is bad.

General Comments:

It's a really nice car. I like it a lot, so does my friends and family. I hope Volvo gives me what I need. Sorry about my bad English, but I'm from Norway.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th September, 2002

10th Jul 2006, 07:30

Since I´ve heard that these 460´s tend to rust It would be nice to hear some of your thoughts on that. I´m doing a little detective work for a friend who´s buying a car. I prefer the 240 series, but He thinks they are too thirsty. Comment if any thoughts.

Average review marks: 6.3 / 10, based on 4 reviews