1998 Volvo S40 Reviews

1998 Volvo S40 T4 1.9 from El Salvador

Model year1998
Year of manufacture1998
First year of ownership2009
Most recent year of ownership2010
Engine and transmission 1.9 Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.8 / 10
Distance when acquired110000 kilometres
Most recent distance165000 kilometres
Previous carVolvo 460

Summary:

I hope my 5 year old kid can learn to drive in this car :)

Faults:

Driver's seat leather has started to be damaged in some parts.

Oil consumption is more than normal.

General Comments:

Very quick car, and handling is great.

Look and feel is very nice.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 8th November, 2010

1998 Volvo S40 Baseline 2.0 Non turbo from South Africa

Model year1998
Year of manufacture1998
First year of ownership2008
Engine and transmission 2.0 Non turbo Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.8 / 10
Distance when acquired180000 kilometres
Most recent distance184000 kilometres
Previous carVolvo S70

Summary:

Great value for money

Faults:

Had to replace the lower rear suspensions bushes and rear shock rubbers, then also the front shock mountings and lower front bushes on the suspension (unsure what they're called). All replaced at the same time, and cost R7500.00 (ZAR)

General Comments:

I previously owned a Mercedes C250 turbo diesel, and now a Volvo S40 standard.. Comparing the two cars I have noted differences.

The Merc had more power because it was turbo, but the Volvo has far more comfortable seats and is very quiet (it is a bit rough on bumpy roads).

It has excellent road holding, and is stable on the road, considering that my Merc had ASC and my Volvo doesn't have any assistance.

Also I find the interior build to be of a great luxury standard.. No rattles or moans.

I find my S40 to be reliable and hassle free, and very easy to drive..

Downside only being that the A pillars do restrict a bit of vision. And when you replace the standard radio tape with a CD frontloader, you notice the speakers don't have as much thump/ bass in them.

10/10. A great all around car. I love it, and would consider swapping it back for a Merc!!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th June, 2008

1998 Volvo S40 T4 1.9 from Australia and New Zealand

Model year1998
Year of manufacture1998
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2005
Engine and transmission 1.9 Automatic
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.6 / 10
Distance when acquired100000 kilometres
Most recent distance160000 kilometres
Previous carMG B

Summary:

A classy Swedish rocket ship well worth owning

Faults:

A CV joint liner needed replacing at about 140000km. Replaced for $127 Australian.

General Comments:

To date this car has been an excellent purchase.

The all leather interior and (fake) wood still looks great and the car goes like a rocket ship at the lights or on the open road.

I have been a little surprised about some of the negative Volvo comments I have seen on other websites as we've had very little to complain about.

Volvo dealerships in Western Australia have been very nice and helpful. To date we have had the car fully serviced at Volvo, but will probably now take the car to the local mechanic where I get my MGB serviced to save some money.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 7th July, 2005

1998 Volvo S40 SE 2.0 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1998
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 2.0 Manual
Performance marks 4 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.6 / 10
Most recent distance59755 miles
Previous carVolvo S40

Summary:

Too much to pay for it's performance

Faults:

No problems have so far occured on the car.

General Comments:

This car is a terrible performer.

It is slow and bulky.

Performances are poor to average.

Handling is OK - actually gets better in the wet.

Gets better in terms of power when up to 90 mph - engine sounds better and more relaxed.

Dealers have always been good.

Car needs to be quicker, much quicker, have better handling.

It deserves to compete with the likes of Saab and BMW, but it can't because its too slow.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 30th July, 2004

1998 Volvo S40 CD 2.0 injection from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1998
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 2.0 injection Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.6 / 10
Distance when acquired97000 miles
Most recent distance131000 miles
Previous carVolvo 480

Summary:

Stylish sporty saloon- and reliable!

Faults:

Leaky fuel unions- fixed by dealer.

Gear lever rubber mountings worn- (common for pre-99 S40's) £40 job by dealer.

Some broken trim on the driver's seat- cheap and easy to replace.

"Graunching" from the front suspension struts. Worn bushings not cheap to replace.

General Comments:

Performance and reliability of the S40 far outstrips the 480ES I used to have. The car corners very well with no sign of stepping out.

The engine is EXTREMELY reliable and has never let me down. After service tuning, the car has managed 40.1 mpg. Average is 38.4 mpg, even with town driving.

Very comfortable interior on the CD model. Leather seats, adjustable driver seat level and steering wheel rake. However, my S40 is a pre-99 model and displays a certain harshness over badly-maintained roads. Post-99 models have improved suspension.

Visibility is generally good, but the front window pillars can obscure vision on hill junctions, and rearward vision can be difficult due to the high level of the boot lid.

Rear seat legroom is limited- tall rear seat passenger had better sit on the nearside!

The car is sometimes used to carry a disabled passenger- the rear springs had to be uprated to allow the loading of a heavy power-chair. The dealer fitted V40 springs to help compensate.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 3rd January, 2004

Average review marks: 8.1 / 10, based on 13 reviews