1995 Volvo 850 Wagon base from North America


Best value available


No problems during ownership.

General Comments:

Replaced tires at 50,000 miles.

This car was a pleasure to own and drive. Without the turbo and all-wheel-drive, it is very cheap to run.

Seats are comfortable.

Drives like a sports-car.

25 to 30 mpg.

Replaced with an equally good S70.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 28th February, 2004

1995 Volvo 850 turbo from North America


The car of my dreams


Odometer stopped.

Motor mount replaced.

Insignificant inside lights failed.

Front brakes warped and were replaced.

O2 sensor replaced.

General Comments:

This was my lipstick-red dream car. It had been hit in the front before I got it and pulled a bit to the right, but still it was effortless to drive 3,000 miles cross country. I drove 60 miles a day on Seattle freeways and it made the difference between hyper-stress and happiness. And it would outrun almost anything on the road. Comfort, great AC and sound, nimble as all get-out. Financial difficulties forced me to downsize payments or I would have it still.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 30th October, 2003

1995 Volvo 850 SE estate 2.5 10v (140bhp) from UK and Ireland


Excellent reliable family car


Rear hub carrier replaced at 110,000 miles.

General Comments:

Apart from consumables, only one fault has occurred with the car. Excellent record.

Very comfortable seats.

Spacious seats and load area.

Performance is perfectly acceptable for most people.

Fuel economy around town is poor - didn't get any better than 20mpg.

Refined cruiser at high speeds, with 33mpg+ fuel economy.

Insurance not bad for a car of this size.

Excellent air conditioner and heater.

Good handling - much better than that on older Volvos.

Automatic transmission good, but little on jerky side when accelerating hard.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 4th September, 2003

1995 Volvo 850 Turbo 2.3 turbo petrol from Singapore


High performance and safe, but unreliable and expensive to repair


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.


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.