Just been and driven it. A nice car, completely ruined by a dreadful ride (as you suspected nick). It has no finesse at all - thumping and crashing over poor surfaces, and lots of road noise. Taut in the bends, but hopeless everywhere else.
Engine was very noisy at tickover, and flat at the bottom end compared to the VW PD, but gutsy and smooth on the move. Nice interior too. They couldn't live with the ride though. They've asked to drive a non sport model on more sensible wheels for comparison.
Thanks for the advice.
|
|
Have they thought of trying a Focus estate, or even a C-Max? The oily bits are much the same I think. They could get a newer one for similar money, and there is presumably more choice of wheel sizes.
|
Avant - a sore point!! :-)
F-i-L hates Fords based on a bad experience with a mkIV Cortina back in 1982! Yes, I know the V50 is a Focus under the skin, and so does he, but his mind cannot be changed. I've been trying for years! I stopped getting raised blood pressure about it years ago, and gave up!:-)
The dealer has found another car in the same colour and same spec but without the sports suspension, and running on smaller 17" alloys. It's done a few more miles, but is £2k cheaper. They're organising getting that over for the in-laws to drive. Dealer has been first class, I have to say. Bending over backwards. We effectively had the car unaccompanied for over 2 hours this morning, and are very understanding about the comments on the ride.
They were very taken with the car as a whole. Thought it was very comfy and drove very well. They just hated the ride quality, and frankly I completely agree. On a par with a hot version of the new Seat Leon and just completely unyielding and tiring.
They only had two other gripes - no clutch foot-rest, and the engine's lack of pull under 2k. This renders 6th as an overdrive gear only unless you're speeding. Pulling out to overtake on the motorway at, say 60 mph requires a downchange to 5th. The VW engine will haul from 50 mph in top without complaining. Once on boost though, that Pug/Ford engine is an absolute peach. Smooth, quiet, and very free revving for a diesel. Sounds a bit ropey on idle though.
It made me chuckle how my F-i-L kept "over steering" it into corners. Compared to the Golf it's a fabulous handling car, and turns in so much more keenly. I had a little punt over some of the lanes at about eight tenths and it was a delight. Until the road turned bumpy.
We'll see how this other example drives. I suspect if the ride is noticeably better, they'll go for it.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 28/06/2008 at 20:29
|
We're beginning to build up a picture of your FiL, DP! :) A conservative type, knows what he likes and sticks with it, probably never lets anyone down himself and doesn't want to be let down.
SWMBO would sympathise - she will never have another Fiat although the bad experience in question was in 1981....
Good luck to them. A V50 is a perfectly good car in my view: although I didn't think it worth the cost new, it should be a good deal for them a couple of years old.
|
DP,
Even on 17's the ride can still be a bit on the firm side with 225/40 or 45 tyres.
Don't let that put them off though just ask the dealer to swap them for a set of 16's. Shouldn't be a problem as by the sounds of it the dealership want to do a deal.
|
Heh, yeah. That's a pretty good summary of him. To be quite honest, I'm still gobsmacked that he's looking outside of VAG. I never thought I'd see it!
Good point on the wheel swap. Might be worth going down that route if the ride is still an issue.
Quick question - does anyone know what the cambelt change interval is on this engine? I have a Ford service checksheet generator, and looking up the 2.0 TDCi C-MAX it says 10 yrs or 150,000 miles. Can't be right....can it??
Thanks very much for all your helpful comments and advice.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 28/06/2008 at 21:55
|
Agree with gmac - I don't think they'll have a magic carpet ride on the 17-inchers either. I didn't. Then again the Sports suspension on the Sport model is probably half the problem?
My previous S60 - on 16-inchers - gave a much better ride.
Dealer should be able to locate dozens of V50 SEs with the 2-litre diesel - it must be the most popular trim/engine combination.
|
I think Volvo say 96000 for the cambelt on the 2.0d even of others with the same engine state a different mileage.
There are loads of 2.0d SE models around - that and the 2.0d S are the most common types by far.
|
Thanks all! Just keeping an eye out for a suitable car now. Would like to deal with this dealer if at all possible, as they've been brilliant.
Cheers
DP
|
Just to give you an update on m my faulty V50 (see above).
Got the car back last week after a new filter assembly had been fitted. Ran fine for three days then on Monday would not start. So another tow by the RAC back to Volvo. (third in four weeks).
Lease company and Volvo technical are now involved. The latest thoughts are that the Fuel Tank is in some way forming a vacuum which is sucking the fuel back into the tank. The tank has been removed and the breather pipes checked. It is currently waiting for another part to do with the tank.
I may get it back on Monday.
On a positive note, I asked the lease company if they had many problem,s with the V50's and they said they didn't. In their opinion they were fairly reliable.
Had a 1.9D Vectra this week and it has returned 50mpg over 550 miles. Which is much better than the Volvo's 44mpg.
I'll let you know if this time the repair ius successful.
|
They've finally gone for one, and put a deposit on a V50.
Found an absolutely mint 60,000 mile 2.0d SE at a long established and well regarded Volvo specialist indie. In silver, with heated leather and the all important sunroof, full Volvo history, 2yr warranty and with the more sensible 16" wheels and standard suspension.
The ride is in a different league - supple and quiet, yet it still handles beautifully. Why anyone goes for the sport pack is beyond me.
They pick it up next Saturday.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 03/08/2008 at 20:32
|
Hope you have a better experience with your V50 than I have had with mine, a 2006 2.0SE!
I bought the car mainly because of Volvo's alleged reliability record, however, of all the number of cars I have owned in the last 40 years, this one is getting very close to being the most unreliable! I purchased it at 9 month's old with less than 9K on the clock. Since then it has had warranty work carried out on 5 occasions, - a fault with the Volvo 'On Call' function, faulty wiring affecting electric windows & central locking, total engine failure, faulty brake vacuum & now a faulty abs unit. This latest problem awaits a replacement unit which has to be ordered from Sweden. In the meantime I am again without a car & due to go away on holiday in 4 days!
Fuel consumption I consider to be poor. I have run diesel cars for many years & have always managed to achieve at least 45mpg, my previous car was a series 3 BMW 2.0L touring & I regularly got over 50mpg. Front tyre wear is heavy, I consider myself a careful driver but I only managed to get 12K out of the front .
Stowage space for small items is lacking & the handbrake position is clearly designed for a LH drive version.
Good points.- Good build quality, comfortable seats, good looker, very comfortable to drive. However my experiece of this model would not allow me to recommend it to any potential buyer, this one will be my one & only Volvo!
|
Fuel consumption I consider to be poor. I have run diesel cars for many years & have always managed to achieve at least 45mpg my previous car was a series 3 BMW 2.0L touring & I regularly got over 50mpg.
Were any of your previous diesels Euro4 ?
The EU are putting tighter and tighter restrictions on engines for which the manufacturers are using filters which in turn are leading to increased fuel consumption.
Compare any engine in production now which has been EU4'd when previously EU3 and you will see an increase in CO2.
The EU appears to believe if cars burn more fuel they produce fewer emissions !?
I think the emphasis should be on reducing the amount that goes in before the burn not cleaning up afterwards.
|
I remember Ford (and probably others) were experimenting with "lean burn" petrol engines just before the advent of catalysts. These gave staggering economy figures (and I suspect emissions, although they weren't published then) using old tech engines running carbs (CVH and Pinto).
I sometimes wonder what might have been if development had followed this route with engine design and fuel injection systems optimised to suit? Catalysts have always struck me as a very inelegant solution, given that they reduce engine efficiency to start with, and even more so as they age/wear, and clean up afterwards rather than the engine running efficiently to start with.
When cat and non-cat cars were running side by side in model lineups, the cat cars were always slower and thirstier.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 06/08/2008 at 23:02
|
I ran V50 2.0D manuals in both SE and Sport Spec from when they were launched until December 2006. I think in that time I had 4 or 5 different cars, running them until they reached 12k. Even with the earliest ones (which had the gearbox in such a way it was easy to accidently engage reverse) were reliable cars; I abused them for the 12-15K that I had them, regularily towing canoe trailers whilst having boats on the roof, or driving to the Lake District with 2 16ft canoes on the roof...
The Sport handling was awesome, but was very sensitive to tyre pressures.
The SE was dull in comparison... please let me have a sport again...
Things to make sure of: The Handbrake is a bit sketchy; it's been recently redesigned... I found that with it on 2 or 3 clicks it would roll back on a gradual hill start with the trailer on...
Fuel economy... my 7 year old V70 runs for about the same pence per mile as the V50 did!!
|
|
