1993 Volvo 440 Reviews from UK and Ireland

1993 Volvo 440 Xi 1.8

Model year1993
Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership2008
Most recent year of ownership2009
Engine and transmission 1.8 Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired50000 miles
Most recent distance51000 miles
Previous carVolvo V70

Summary:

Reliable safe tank

Faults:

The exhaust front end came away from the bracket and now needs replacing. ATS could not supply the part, so it was welded back together until I source someone who can supply the part, hopefully someone on ebay looks promising..

General Comments:

Well it's an old car so what you would expect for an old Volvo. Heated seats etc all work. Still needs running in because low mileage old cars that old lady's have from new one owner type are never well run in! But as this is a stand by while my V70 D5 head gets a rebuild, I will see what I can do about running it in!!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 2nd January, 2009

1993 Volvo 440 Si 1.7

Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership2005
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.7 Automatic
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 5 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.3 / 10
Distance when acquired54000 miles
Most recent distance55000 miles
Previous carRenault Laguna

Summary:

Good car when all is well

Faults:

Exhaust failed five days after I got the car. I Still can't afford to have it fixed, and am driving around in what sounds like a tractor!

Starter motor went on me in a service station.

All wheelarches are rusty.

Car is just sitting forlornly now, I have not enjoyed my ownership of it one bit. Having said that, I'm sure this would be a really good car if these things hadn't tarnished my ownership of it!

General Comments:

Would be a good car if it weren't for the niggly faults which crop up on after another.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 30th April, 2006

1993 Volvo 440 Si 1.8 single point injection

Model year1992
Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission 1.8 single point injection Manual
Performance marks 6 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.3 / 10
Distance when acquired60000 miles
Most recent distance80000 miles

Summary:

An affordable, tough and durable car

Faults:

To be honest, not a great deal has gone wrong with this car.

Only experienced one break down resulting in RAC assistance. The fault was a defective throttle butterfly.

Earth strap broke. Easily repaired in five minutes.

Very minor electrical problems, due to bad earth. Easily rectified.

General Comments:

The car always starts easily regardless of weather.

The seats are very comfortable and the ride quality is good.

The layout of the facia is uncluttered making it easy to activated the "feel good quality" controls.

The interior has not suffered much wear.

The drive is comfortable, but I do feel closed in with limited visibility.

Bearing in mind this is the basic Si model, which means no electric windows, no electric mirrors, no sunroof and no tachometer (rev counter) etc.

The engine is underpowered at producing only 89bhp. The five speed gearbox is ideal for long motorway journeys.

I would prefer if the car had a solid Volvo engine instead of a feeble Renault one.

The car can easily exceed the 100mph mark. The engine is a bit of a guzzler around town at returning a poor 25mpg.

In the four years of ownership, this car has been a good vehicle. It has Passed every MOT with no work needed and still looks clean both inside and out.

The 400 series Volvo was one of their first front wheel drive cars. I preferred the rear wheel drive qualities of my Volvo 340.

The car`s demise almost occurred when some spineless maggot wrenched open the driver`s door, broke the steering cowling and made a futile attempt to hot-wire the ignition. Luckily, the lout(s) gave up, either because they found the steering lock too robust, or the electrical system confusing.

To be honest, I have never known joy riders to be attracted to the theft or attempted theft of any Volvo. I always thought joy riders stole cars such as Fords, Austins and Vauxhauls.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 22nd October, 2005

1993 Volvo 440 2.0i 2.0 petrol

Year of manufacture1993
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 2.0 petrol Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 0 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.0 / 10
Distance when acquired63000 miles
Most recent distance67000 miles
Previous carRover - Austin Coupe

Summary:

If you don't own one, go and buy one, you can get a great motor for a grand

Faults:

Rattly trim.

Popping bulbs.

Sticking locks.

General Comments:

This is my second 440 volvo, I previously owned a 440 Turbo between 1997 and 2000 and have owned a multitude of crap cars since, inc Fiat Tipo, Astra, Citroen BX.

The 440 Turbo`s life was destroyed after driving it into 3ft deep water, after 4 weeks in a garage and £600 later it was clearly in a bad way and was sold for £300.

Now I have a 2.0 440i, which is not as fast and does not have quite the same spec, but I now remember why I bought a volvo in the first place.

Reliability, Comfort, Spec, Respectability, Good performance, Cheap insurance, Excellent second hand prices.

I so far have not had any problems with my latest car, however when I owned the 440 Turbo I took it to the Volvo dealers to have a diagnostic check on the Turbo which appeared to be failing, They told me the Turbo unit was a dead and a replacement would cost £500, they then charged me £55 for this information.

I had a reconditioned Turbo fitted by an independent mechanic at a cost of £260 and it still did not work.

After months of pissing around and wasting money I finally discovered that there was nothing wrong with the Turbos and the problem was solved by changing the catalytic converter for £100.

To sum up - excellent cars, crap dealers, and mechanics don't like them.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 26th May, 2003

Average review marks: 7.1 / 10, based on 7 reviews