2000 Volvo S40 from North America
Too much work for a new car
I have had nothing but problems with my Volvo S40. After owning it less than a year, I have had to replace the 2 front headlights, and one of the taillights. More seriously, it has been in the shop twice to have the rotors replaced. Just recently, it had to be taken in to have the CV boot completely replaced, as well as the linkage and other pertinent parts on the front, passenger side wheel. 3 days after I got it back from the dealer after the CV boot work, the brake warning light came on and I had to add brake fluid to the car (something the dealer should have checked while it was there, in my opinion).
I bought a Volvo based on its safe and reliable reputation. I will not buy another one. Maybe the old ones were reliable, but these new ones sure aren't.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No
Review Date: 24th October, 2002
11th Dec 2002, 22:22
You are 100% correct! The only Volvo models that I know as having the stereo-typical Volvo reputation for safety and reliability are the 940, 760, 740, and 240 models. The 940, 760, and 740 are all mechanically the same. A friend of mine has an '87 240 with 250k miles on the original engine and transmission and it still runs wonderfully! I myself own an '85 240 with 160k miles, which runs very good as well. My mother owns an '89 740 Turbo with 180,000 miles and you'd swear by the way it drives it only has 50k miles on it! The older ones are definitely better! I honestly think Volvo went downhill once Ford took over. Since '92 or '93, Volvo reliability has not been nearly as good. You would be much better off finding a low mileage, used Volvo of one of the models I mentioned above.