1997 Volvo S40 T4 1.9L turbo petrol/gas
Summary:
Better and cheaper than other cars in same class
Faults:
Just small problems, nothing dramatic.
Over 180 km/h, wind blows so loud.
Leather is sensitive.
Too expensive for service (just in my country).
General Comments:
Great car.
Looks very nice.
Great performance for such a small engine.
Very cozy seats.
Very low fuel consumption.
Better than Audi A4 1.8 turbo (1999), BMW 325 (1998), M. Benz C230 Kompressor (1999); I compare with these cars because my friends own them.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 18th February, 2008
22nd Apr 2008, 04:41
True, you can't compare the S40 with the Mercedes - the Mercedes would have rusted away and fallen to bits long ago. Judging by the amount of rusty 10 year old ones here in the UK! The Volvo is far better!
22nd Apr 2008, 13:16
He he he... you guys are funny... S 40 is probably the worst Volvo produced since the 340/360.
I live in Gothenburg Sweden and the S/V 40 reputation here is not very solid.
22nd Apr 2008, 13:19
I have to agree with the fact that a MB uses quality materials... Volvo is a nice brand but not MB quality and the price shows it.
23rd Apr 2008, 07:28
I have had many experiences in past; with Volvo and the Mercedes.
I agree that S40 is the worst Volvo, and interior materials are far better on the Mercedes. But that's it. In every other aspect Volvo is better. Even on quality aspect.
Not everything that shines is gold. Quality has absolutely nothing to do with price. Price of the Mercedes is simply based on their old image. You have to remember, that Mercedes'es were quality cars about a decade ago and more. Now... not so much anymore.
21st Apr 2008, 15:00
Please do not compare the tragic S40 With the MB 230...not the same division...