I'm considering buying a 2004 S40, (not 2004.5), but am concerned about several complaints I've seen about reliability. And do you really have to use premium gas? It has 56K miles and is a one owner vehicle, though that one owner was a corporate lease. The dealer is asking $11,444. Any thoughts are much appreciated. I'm looking for a commuter car for work as my truck is killing me on gas.

Thanks in advance!

I guess to elaborate a little further, I am actually debating between the 2004 and a 2001 that has 58K miles. The 2001 is $3100 cheaper. Given that they have similar miles and that I'm looking for a commuter car, would the 2001 be a safer bet? Same parts and costs for future repairs and maintenance?

I need to act soon, so any advice is much appreciated.

Its a UK site but it should give you an idea on what to look out for

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/index.htm?md=464&

Thanks, still seems kind of a tough call. I see a lot of bad reviews and people that had tons of problems, but I've also seen people who swear by its reliability and love them. However, it does seem like the 2004 1.9 seems to have the least amount of complaints from a reliability standpoint.

The 2001's are a mess, go with the 2004, mine has 111,000 miles and I have had only a few problems, nothing major, it was the last year they made them so all of the defects were sorted out by the time the 2004 came out.

As far as the fuel, it can use 87 octane but 91 or better is recommended. I tried using the cheap gas and found it didn't run as well, and I actually got less gas mileage out of the 87 octane. It runs much better on 93 octane.

Keep in mind you will be getting 28-30 mpg on the premium fuel so it sort of compensates for the cost.

I love my 2004 S40 and wouldn't trade it for anything. Most problems are just stupid things that make the check engine light come on, and 99% of the time, if you use a reset tool and clear the codes, they never come back.

Most I have spent was $600 to get timing belt done at 105,000 miles as recommended, and I spent 300 to get the front sway bar bushings replaced because they cracked and rotted apart.

If you get it use synthetic oil such as Mobil 1 any turbocharged car is much better off with synthetic oil, it withstands the turbo heat much better than any conventional oil can.

PS That is a good price for that car too, and the 2004 has more safety options and a better interior quality than the 2001.

2001 arent a mess and crap. Both 2001 and 2004 cars are Phase 2 cars which are a fair bit better in terms of handling and comfort than phase 1 cars(pre MY2000 and not many in the US). The only differences are appearance things(grill and trim etc). If your happy with an older car and it saves you a few dollars theres no reason to pay more for a newer car. In warranty directs survey of the top 100 cars the S/V40 cam out 15th http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/tophundr...128339010848601 with the Mitsubishi Carisma that was based on he same shell and built in the same plant reaching 4.

As you only get the Turbo cars over there there is no saving by using 87 fuel you will loose power and the MPG will drop, you might as well put higher octane fuel in and the better mpg will offset any extra cost with the plus that you engine will run more effeciently.

NOT ARGUING BUT YOU ARE WRONG!

I don't care about what the ratings are in the UK because you guys don't have the 1.9T motors.

The 2001-2002 S40's had plenty of problems that were not fixed until the 2003 year.

Look how many problems you will find on here with people having electrical, computer, emission problems etc.

There are transmission failures, control module issues, fuel and emission sensor problems, the check engine lights are almost always on in the older S40's.

If you look in the post the guy who posted the question also said he found the 2004 to have the least complaints of reliability.

Actually you are wrong and just shown your wealth of knowledge on the subject. We do have the 1.9T(as the americans call it) but over here its known as the low pressure turbo 2.0T which is what its badged on the back of the car(with the high pressure turbo being the phase 2 T4s) and is one of the most popular models they sold. It wasn't known as a 1.9T because the early T4s were 1855cc and that was known as the 1.9 engine.

Now this is the funny bit there was no major improvement to any of the 1.9T engines, transmission, chassis or anything from 2001 onwards they had already been embodied for the phase 2 cars(there will have been software updates but thats it). The phase 2 cars are all pretty much the same there was no magical redesign(of anything important anyway) for the 2003 model, infact Volvo were no longer interested in it by then as the New Focus based S40/V50 would launch a year later.