|
Current Volvo’s do seem to have a well deserved reputation for comfortable seats. Not much use to the OP though. I find most cars pretty comfy these days and as a passenger would rather be in a car with firmish suspension rather than wallowing about. From my personal point of view firm ride and good seats are the way to go. Maybe being a child of the 60’s and wallowing around in my parents various BL monstrosities has left a lasting impression!
|
|
Agree with much as said above...most comfortable seats for me have been Saab and Volvo...though now both would struggle to match the comfort of my current Toyota Estima V6 MPV import (similar to Alphard).
It's rather like driving your lounge around....pure luxury on wheels and I've got to that age where I so welcome that..lol
|
Really appreciate all your excellent contributions.
Two favourites are the MB E 320 D and Superb MK 1 But I would appreciate your views on the 207 SW . Did this have the diesel of doom?
|
Really appreciate all your excellent contributions. Two favourites are the MB E 320 D and Superb MK 1 But I would appreciate your views on the 207 SW . Did this have the diesel of doom?
Yes the DoD is under the bonnet, though in two stages of tune if my memory serves, 90bhp has no DPF and no oilies dispenser, 110bhp gets both...though this will almost certainly have changed on later models, probably around 2009 build.
However both can suffer with injector seal blow by, and any vehicle, as we know here only too well, can suffer from neglectful and unsympathetic previous owners, looked after these engines are not destined to eat turbochargers, however if looking at a 110 in particular i'd be looking carefully for signs of a recent new or recon turbo, and if found run a mile.
some interesting reading on the why's and he puts the blame heavily on injector seal failure, note his final recommendation, that after all this work is completed to change the engine oil and filter every 3000 miles.
autotechnician.co.uk/workshop-repair-1-6-tdci-turb.../
Edited by gordonbennet on 21/04/2019 at 11:14
|
|
|
Really appreciate all your excellent contributions.
Two favourites are the MB E 320 D and Superb MK 1 But I would appreciate your views on the 207 SW . Did this have the diesel of doom?
Polar opposites here. No offence but it’s odd that you’re looking at a basic supermini v high spec execs like an E class Merc. The 207 diesel isn’t a wise buy and yes the 1.6 HDi is the now notorious diesel of doom so avoid at all costs. If you want a 207 stick with the simple petrol and keep it basic but there are much better small cars for the money. How much do you have to spend? It’s all important here, is it £1,500 or £15,000? If closer to the former then you need a rethink regarding these complex executives or any diesel for that matter, DPF equipped or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Volvo S80/V70/S60? All have wonderfully comfortable heated seats and most ride well. But much hangs on how much money you want to spend. As much as the old 406 was a great car in its day I would’t be buying a fifteen year old Peugeot if I were looking for reliable transport nor would I be looking at diesels on a limited budget.
The bigger Volvos do have great seats and usually ride well - the problem is Volvo were also early adopters of the DPF which the OP was wanting to avoid. As you say any old diesel could be a liability on a tight budget even ones without a DPF.
Edited by Big John on 21/04/2019 at 10:49
|
But I would appreciate your views on the 207 SW . Did this have the diesel of doom?
Short answer is, yes it did.
As to if you should avoid one because of this?, well that is a bit trickier. A couple of points first though, the youngest 207SW is going to be 6 years old, the oldest, 12. So if buying a nice, well looked after example, which has been serviced regular (especially at shorter intervals than recommended), i'm not sure i'd be too put off by that engine. Yes, it does have a bit of a reputation, but equally, you will find plenty who really rate it. Late 2017 i was forced into buying a new van for my work and i was very much put off buying a van with that engine by that reputation. But that was more due to the kind of life a small van will have lead, and the kind of servicing it will have recieved (i.e., the bare minimum at the lowest cost if company owned). While estate cars will in general lead harder lives than their saloon/hatchback equivalents, this would be more for bigger estates, actually used for hard work. With a smaller estate, i suspect they will have lead relatively easy lives and been looked after pretty well. What i found when i looked into it was that the problems stem from the manufacturers specifying a 'too long' service interval. Compounded by the other factor i found out which is that they need to use a specific grade of oil. If the correct oil is used, and shorter intervals adhered to, the engine is reliable and long lived. So if you can find an example with very full service records, you should be fine. But another point is, does it have to be the diesel?. Unless you cover a huge amount of miles, or tow something heavy (in which case, you'd probably be better served by a bigger car), wouldn't the 1.6 petrol be worth considering?.
|
But I would appreciate your views on the 207 SW . Did this have the diesel of doom?
Short answer is, yes it did.
As to if you should avoid one because of this?, well that is a bit trickier. A couple of points first though, the youngest 207SW is going to be 6 years old, the oldest, 12. So if buying a nice, well looked after example, which has been serviced regular (especially at shorter intervals than recommended), i'm not sure i'd be too put off by that engine. Yes, it does have a bit of a reputation, but equally, you will find plenty who really rate it. Late 2017 i was forced into buying a new van for my work and i was very much put off buying a van with that engine by that reputation. But that was more due to the kind of life a small van will have lead, and the kind of servicing it will have recieved (i.e., the bare minimum at the lowest cost if company owned). While estate cars will in general lead harder lives than their saloon/hatchback equivalents, this would be more for bigger estates, actually used for hard work. With a smaller estate, i suspect they will have lead relatively easy lives and been looked after pretty well. What i found when i looked into it was that the problems stem from the manufacturers specifying a 'too long' service interval. Compounded by the other factor i found out which is that they need to use a specific grade of oil. If the correct oil is used, and shorter intervals adhered to, the engine is reliable and long lived. So if you can find an example with very full service records, you should be fine. But another point is, does it have to be the diesel?. Unless you cover a huge amount of miles, or tow something heavy (in which case, you'd probably be better served by a bigger car), wouldn't the 1.6 petrol be worth considering?.
Just to clarify, i'm not saying buying a 207 1.6 diesel would be a good idea, just that i wouldn't appraoch it with any more caution (due to that 'reputation') than any other ageing but fairly complex diesel.
|
|
|
|
Volvo S80/V70/S60? All have wonderfully comfortable heated seats and most ride well. But much hangs on how much money you want to spend. As much as the old 406 was a great car in its day I would’t be buying a fifteen year old Peugeot if I were looking for reliable transport nor would I be looking at diesels on a limited budget.
The bigger Volvos do have great seats and usually ride well - the problem is Volvo were also early adopters of the DPF which the OP was wanting to avoid. As you say any old diesel could be a liability on a tight budget even ones without a DPF.
Not sure if it applies to the larger Volvos, but when I was looking for a car back in early 2017 to replace my Mazda3 (still got it), I looked at a Volvo V40, and yes, the seat was comfortable, but the car (and a show-stopper for me at least) didn't have a left foot footrest, which I consider an essential, especially for long journeys or in traffic jams for comfort. I must admit I was surprised at this, given their reputation for the seating ergonomics.
|
|
Just for info, automatic Volvos have a left foot rest, manuals don't (at least that was true of the previous V60). A casualty of the conversion to RHD no doubt.
One reason for taking the XC40 off my shortlist last year was - despite Volvo's trumpeting about how safe their cars are - its requiring the heater and AC to be adjusted via a touchscreen, needing eyes to be taken off the road. They offer voice control as an alternative, but these are notoriously unreliable. Safe???
Comfort is of course subjective, but one needs to remember that there are two separate factors - seats and suspension. Unlike StevieB, I wouldn't find an A4 uncomfortable (excellent seats but firmish suspension) but we are all different and need different tyoes of support for different parts of our anatomy.
|
Just for info, automatic Volvos have a left foot rest, manuals don't (at least that was true of the previous V60). A casualty of the conversion to RHD no doubt.
Shame no-one at the dealer (its not on their website either) told me, as I was looking for an auto at that time (I must've sat in a manual in the showroom and naively thought all V40s were the same), although their usage of the Powershi(f)t gearbox put me off.
Why or why car makes changed rotary volume and A/C controls to touchscreen (don't they know we're driving?) I don't know - very unsafe indeed, and if the touchscreen fails, no controls.
|
Just for info, automatic Volvos have a left foot rest, manuals don't (at least that was true of the previous V60). A casualty of the conversion to RHD no doubt.
Shame no-one at the dealer (its not on their website either) told me, as I was looking for an auto at that time (I must've sat in a manual in the showroom and naively thought all V40s were the same), although their usage of the Powershi(f)t gearbox put me off.
Why or why car makes changed rotary volume and A/C controls to touchscreen (don't they know we're driving?) I don't know - very unsafe indeed, and if the touchscreen fails, no controls.
I agree it's much easier to turn a knob or press a up down switch than faff with a screen especially whilst driving. In both our cars and all the different lorries I drive I can just feel for the control and adjust without taking eyes off the road.
Edited to add. Climate control is more or less set and forget but it's still nicer to have a proper switch or knob/ dial
Edited by dan86 on 21/04/2019 at 21:42
|
|
|
|
|
|
