2008 Volvo V50 1.6D from Belgium - Comments

Air-co, it's always on when starting the car. Even when it is set to Manual-No Air-co.

The Volvo V50 version I have (1.6D) is underpowered, and a joke. I hate it. It's slow in acceleration, you need to slip the differential if you want it to start at a light in a decent fashion. It's slow in overtaking: I don't like overtaking in it, as I don't trust the engine. I think it feels like it could lose power at any time.

I think if it had a real engine, it would really be a nice car, but the 1.6D is just too small for this car.

I've had an 1994 Astra 1.7D, which is a whole lot slower, but it didn't pretend to be a sporty car, and it was a really comfortable ride. The Volvo's ride is too hard to be comfortable. Especially in combination with a 1.6D, the ride is just too hard. It's not like you need a sporty suspension with its total lack of power.

I mean, a 29000€ car that can't even get to 60MPH or 1000 KM/U in less than 10 seconds? I wish I had gone for the Volkswagen Golf V Variant. It has 5 HP less (or has it?), but is faster - tried it, a colleague of mine made the right choice and chose the new Golf instead of the V50, and I really can't keep up with him (and you should know that he couldn't keep up with my old Golf IV Variant in his Golf V Variant).

Also, the V50's stereo, compared to the Blaupunkt stereo from my old Golf, is a complete disaster. It sounds like an 80's tape recorder. It's so bad I almost don't use it at all. Also, the Blaupunkt ate MP3-cds, and the Volvo's sound-system doesn't, which -for me- is reason enough to hate it (hello to Volvo; the year is 2008, people actually use and want MP3 - as standard and not as a gazillion € option) The stereo in the Golf V is also a lot better than what Volvo saddles you up with.

The car does handle better at speed than the Golf, but then again, it was really much easier -and more fun- to attain some speed in the Golf. In the Volvo, you have to rev and rev and rev it, and still it lacks power.

The Volvo V50 I'm driving now costs about 29000€ in Belgium. For that money you should be able to buy a really nice car. Sorry, but the Volvo V50 just isn't worth it's money. When comparing it to equally priced cars, it really sucks (pardon my language, but I really don't have another term for it).

If I could choose another car right now, I think I'd go for the Mitsubishi Lancer DI-D. It has the same look as the Volvo (front), and it handles at least as nice, it is cheaper, and the engine isn't a disaster: it really gets around quite nicely. Also, the lancer's stereo eats MP3s and it sounds REALLY nice.

To Volvo: fix your act, or drop at least 30% of the current price of the V50 1.6D. It just isn't worth it's money.

Also, compared to a Golf IV Variant, the V50 is a lot smaller. You just don't get the same loading volume. The hatch is smaller, the trunk's opening is smaller, the trunk itself is smaller and lower. With the seats put down, it makes up a little, but the V50 isn't as useful to load a lot of IKEA stuff as the Golf IV Variant is. Also, the glove compartment in the Volvo is hardly big enough to contain a pair of gloves.

So, all in all, if you have 29000€ to spend, spend it on a Golf or an Octavia. The Volvo just isn't value for money.

Or just buy the 2.0D version and upgrade the radio!

I agree. Or better yet, try D5. And try Volvo's Dolby pro-logic sound system, you'll see that Golf (or any VW) is joke compared to the right Volvo.

The stereo (next upgrade) is 750€, eg. incredibly overpriced.

You can actually buy a quite OK home stereo for that money.

The 2.0D is indeed an option, but I've tried it, still like TDI power more. The 1.6 D and the 2.0 D both have noticeable turbo lag. The TDI hasn't. In fact, I've driven some Citroens and Peugeots (C4 1.6, C8 2.2 130hp and 406 2.0) and they all suffer from turbo-lag.

The D5 is also too expensive. Also, the engine is a lot heavier than the PSA's, and in a C30 (at least) it spoils the agility of the car. It has (almost) no turbo lag, which is nice.

You don't have a 2.0D for 29000€ with a half-decent stereo (even if you go kinetic) based on the catalog prices.

Forget about a D5.

The 1.6D is a company car, and IMHO is a reason to go job-hopping.

I totally agree with your review. The V50 1.6D is totally underpowered and very bad quality. I have a V50 1.6D leased car since July 2008 with 10000 miles and it will return ASAP to my employer. The car is so slow and gave me such a bad feeling about diesels. I will buy a high performance petrol car (like a Golf V GTI or similar).

I ADVISE STRONGLY NOT TO BUY THIS CAR IF YOU LIKE DRIVING!

I am sorry but I don't agree with these comments.

I have a 1.6d and I am very happy with it. Yes, the engine does not have a huge amount of power, but if you wanted power, why did you get the smallest DIESEL engine.

I bought the car because I wanted a good-looking, SAFE car for my wife that is cheap to run. I think that the V50 1.6d fits the bill perfectly.

If I had wanted a sportier car, I would have bought the D5 version or the T5.

Don't complain that a car is not powerful enough when you buy the smallest version. This is like complaining that a 50cc motorbike does not perform as well as a Harley!

The 1.6d engine is VERY quiet, and my one is very smooth. I have just done a 1000km trip on one tank of fuel (45 liters). You would NOT be able to do that with the 2.0d or the D5 (I know because my mother has a 2.0d and my father has the D5).

Please be fair when you write a review about a car. Make sure that you are not expecting more of the vehicle that it was ever intended to give!!

Why on earth would you buy a 1.6 diesel?? The big clue is that just about everybody else who makes anything decent comes in at around the 2litre mark.

It does beg the question why Volvo make that model in the first place.

I've driven a Golf IV 100bhp/240Nm before the Volvo V50 (109bhp/260Nm), and the Golf felt (was) much quicker.

Either the Golf is under spec, or the Volvo is over spec (I think it's the latter). Also, I got about 5,8l per 100km with the Golf (not driving economically), and I really couldn't get the V50 under 6.8. (mix 50/50 city and highway).

PSA HDI engines do seem to have a discrepancy between the announced and actual MPG rating. A TDI is definitely more economical and quicker then a HDI. Noisier too, but that didn't bother me at all.

Now I have an older Mitsubishi Carisma 1.9DI-D (102bhp Renault dCI engine). It's pretty much like the V40. I quite like it. It's not as agile as a V50, but it's more economical (saves about 1l/100km), has less torque on paper, but it actually does reach 100km/u faster, with far less turbo lag than the V50. Also the turbo hole is less (it picks up nice from 1400-1500 RPM, where the 1.6D was inert to about 1800RPM, where it suddenly got all it's power - not nice to drive at all...). The Carisma also has a rather nice stereo, given it's the standard Mitsubishi CD-player. It's sound quality is far better than the tin box they've put in the V50, and it goes more than loud enough without distorting (also a problem with the tin box from the V50). And, the engine makes less noise, especially when cold (even at -15 C° it starts flawlessly and doesn't rattle like some diesels do).

Finally, for a car that's 8 years old, it doesn't squeak. The floating panel thing in the Volvo resonated with the engine at 2900-3200 RPM, which was really extremely annoying on longer trips on the highway.

You get a 1.6 diesel because your employer is a cheap a** (taxes).

The 1.6 diesel engine fitted to the V50 is a Peugeot HDi!! Get your facts straight. The chassis is a Focus chassis, which means it will leave the Golf et al for dead on the twisty bits!! Modern (European) Ford chassis' are the best bar none. But, I mean, who buys a 1.6D Volvo for performance. Should have stumped up for the 2.0D. Much better performance and no turbo lag as quoted above. I worked for Volvo 4 years ago, and the 2.0D was considered a bit too quick by former TDi keepers. Chassis is streets ahead of anything VW had at the time (2005).