Volvo 850 Reviews from Singapore

1993 Volvo 850 T 2.3L

Model year1994
Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership1994
Most recent year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 2.3L Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.8 / 10
Distance when acquired75000 kilometres
Most recent distance141800 kilometres

Summary:

Lovely. I hope this can be my wedding car in a few years time

Faults:

This is a really strong car. It withstood knocks of 30 kilometers an hour... with minor scratches!

Then there is one problem worth mentioning. You will see that I gave the worst marks to its cost of running above. We have a slang in Chinese that literally means "Eating oil" and this car is clearly a huge eater of oil. It does 8.55 kilometers per liter of oil. Bad considering some new cars doing 12 kilometers on one liter. But all in all, it's still a great car. That's because we learn to live with our faults. I know I have faults too...

General Comments:

A real beauty. Steering is one of the best. Man I'm so used to this steering, that when I took the family car out (it's an MPV, or Multi-Purpose-Van) I nearly ended up on the pavement on a few occasions!

Lights have been great, but I switched them to the white kind as they are brighter.

Final point is acceleration. On highways across the causeway (In Malaysia) I timed the acceleration from 0-100 and it was about 9.5 seconds. Nice for a car this old. L O V E I T!!!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 12th June, 2008

1995 Volvo 850 Turbo 2.3 turbo petrol

Year of manufacture1995
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 2.3 turbo petrol Automatic
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 5 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 2 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 2 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.0 / 10
Distance when acquired80000 kilometres
Most recent distance170000 kilometres
Previous carMitsubishi Galant

Summary:

High performance and safe, but unreliable and expensive to repair

Faults:

Several cases of fluid leakage - steering and engine oil, both were fixed, but was costly. I also experienced engine coolant leaks, but never quite managed to fix this problem, it was manageable because the leak was not very bad and just needed a weekly top up. It was irritating though.

I also had trouble with the automatic transmission control unit which had to be replaced and again cost a bomb!!

General Comments:

I loved the performance of the car, it was quicker that most cars on the road. Ride and handling was also pretty decent. There was also loads of space and fuel consumption was not bad for a pretty heavy car. Finally, the main reason I bought the car was Volvo's safety reputation and the very good crash test results. This was put to the test a couple of times when a mid sized Japanese pickup truck and a compact Japanese car hit the Volvo's rear. They were badly knocked up, but the Swede only had a couple of scratches.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 28th March, 2003

29th Jun 2003, 17:33

Was the damage to the Volvo really that light? I just got a 850 T5 Estate 97P and bought it for the safety rather than performance. That light damage sounds unfeasible though.

Will.

11th Nov 2004, 10:39

You have to believe it. My friend's car (KIA Mentor) was total loss after entering in an Volvo 850 back at about 30 miles/hour. That's mean two things, don't buy a korean car and second, Volvo is like a concrete wall!!I have to mention that Volvo's rear bumper is higher that it should be, any car it'll knock it in the rear will suffer badly.

16th Jul 2006, 23:56

You are right, I hit, making a back in a gas station, a poor Toyota Corolla, and the outcome was a torn apart corolla bumper while my old Swedish friend just suffered a white scratch.

Ps, the Toyota driver was not happy whit me.

Ps2, Since them i take a look behind when a make a back

2nd Jan 2007, 04:06

In all fairness to crash damage. There is a tendency for the front of the car to be softer than the rear. Especially in newer cars as they have to fulfill certain pedestrian safety requirements. So you may notice that when you get rear ended the car behind is usually the worse off for it.

I crashed into the back of a stationary Hyundai Elantra... The Elantra literally had scratches and my 80's Ford Laser crumpled like a used Coke can.

Also body rigidity doesn't really attest to safety as cars are indeed made to crumple to absorb the impact as opposed to transferring it to the passengers. I guess its the difference between dropping an egg on the hard floor and dropping an egg on a mattress. The latter preserves the egg's shape by absorbing the impact first.

Cheers.

Average review marks: 6.9 / 10, based on 2 reviews