Looking for used Volvo recommendation.

Looking to replace my 89 190E with a 98-00 volvo. I like to keep a car for a long time. I drove a 01 s40, but it seemed small and slow. Then a 01 c70 that went like a rocket. Is a non-turbo c70 from 98-00 a durable engine? How bout a s60? Whats a good engine? Thanks for suggestions.

Reply to
Dennis W
Loading thread data ...

1993 Volvo 240 "Classic" with a manual transmission. There's absolutely nothing as relaible and inexpensive to maintain made in the last 20 years.

The manual transmission is the key - I can blow the doors off of a non-turbo/automatic 850/V70 with a 240 if I can wring the engine to it maximum potential. The 850 may put out 30+ more HP, but the automatic causes the engine to lug through the gears, especially in city traffic.

IME, a 240 with stick is literally 3-4 seconds faster 0-60 than the 240 with an automatic. Superb car.

Oh - a clutch job is a few hundred dollars, plus you can always limp the thing to the garage or bump-start it in an emergency. An automatic just dies and that's that - time to tow it and pay $1600+ for a new one.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

Still slower than my auto 264. :-p

Reply to
athol

Dennis,

A serious answer to your question is that the engines in 70-series Volvos are good and durable. The concerns with these cars are the small electrical gremlins and the like. I would avoid the '98 models, but I think the later ones would be acceptable. Overall quality and reliability seems to have slipped a bit after the '97 850s.

Dave

Reply to
Dave Danielson

For instance the '99 S70 is a good car. The original poster asked about S60s as well. We sometimes get an S60 loaner from Field's Volvo when our 850 or S70 are in for routine service. It handles very well, but the interior feels cramped relative to the S70/850. The S60, C70, S70, V70 and 850 share a common engine heritage. The turbo-charged variations of this engine are more fun than the normally aspirated versions.

Reply to
Bev A. Kupf

Avoid the '98 models, YES. But NO if you are going to get a S90. The last year of the 960 was the best. After that, they became Ford. The S40 was a cross platform with the Mitsubushi Charisma. The new S40 is a cross platform with the Mazda 3 (supposed to be very good car) and the Ford Focus.

The C70 had some of the worst problems, in particular the convertible.

Google it with "volvo problem C70" or similar.

Quality went down the dra>Dennis,

Reply to
Sammy

Those were not good years for Volvo. The worst volvos are: VOLVO S90/V90 '98 VOLVO S80 '99-01 VOLVO S70/V70 '98-99 VOLVO S40/V40 '00

The best used Volvos (most reliable) are: VOLVO 240 '91 & '92 VOLVO 940 '94 & '95 VOLVO 850 '95 - '97 VOLVO S40/V40 '01 - '02 VOLVO S60 '01 - '03 VOLVO V70 '02 - '03 VOLVO S80 '02

Reply to
Stephen M. Henning

Reply to
Sammy

Actually, about equal. The 264 had a lot of torque, but revved slowly and the automatic was a kludge as well - it really never worked like it should have.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

Ah. I see - more Consumer Reports "data"

Exact same vehicle other than the name as the 1995-1997 960, so obviously CR is wrong here.

But not the 1993? Same exact car(but with R-134a A/C and a couple of other nice minor features) CR's not being consistent again.

Any year, actually. Same exact engines as the 240s, so this isn't surprizing.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

The engines in the 850/70 series are virtually identical, so they are good choices. IMO, the drivetrain is everything - if the car runs forever without major overhauls, then the rest can easily be dealt with or fixed.

A piece of door trim is a few dollars at a parts yard. A new camshaft is a huge PITA, otoh.

The S40 is the first non-Volvo designed car, as is anything that is a "new" or "updated" model starting in 2005, since while the management changed, the cars took some time to phase out.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

I said _my_ 264. Not a stock 264. It has a little more torque than original, can rev quite well and the auto is not an asin- or borg-warner. The diff isn't a Dana, either. :-)

Reply to
athol

Oh. Heh :) Yeah, Volvos actually customize very easily.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

'93 was primarily the year of the 850. About the only '93 240's that were made were the 245. The sample size was too small to give a reading.

Being the "exact same" is not in the least bit true. If you ever worked in a factory you would know that there is constant change:

1) during a model year parts are cost reduced. Reduction in part cost immediately increases profit. 2) assembly is constantly changing. Efficiency in assembly is constantly being improved and increases profit. 3) tooling is constantly changing. As tooling wears, parts vary. Then when tooling is replaced, there is a big change. 4) workers are different. Everyone does their job differently. And when people are replaced there is a learning curve and new techniques. 5) production lines are different. Many times different lines are used for a single product. A car is made up of many different products. Hence it is a product of many different lines which are constantly changing with different tooling, different workers, different process instructions and different designs being phased in at different times.

These difference cover everything from the bolts and nuts to the pistons and rings.

Hence it is meaningless to say the car was the same in two different years since in a single year no two cars are the same.

Reply to
Stephen M. Henning

But it is the only data we have about owners own experiences with their cars. It is certainly better than anecdotal comments about one or two cars. Such comments are interesting but meaningless in the big picture. CU surveys thousands of owners of each model.

Reply to
Stephen M. Henning

You are saying this in regard to Volvos. It is not true in general. A good counterexamply was my 1990 Subaru Legacy. It never failed to start and never failed to get me where I was going. But it was constantly failing. It had rust so bad it wouldn't pass state inspection without major body parts being replaced. The door locks would fail and lock the driver in the car. The rust on the brakes was so bad that they had to be serviced just prior to a state inspection in order to pass. In other words, a junk pile that runs forever is still a junk pile.

To me that is what makes Volvos different. They are worth fixing. The Subaru wasn't.

Reply to
Stephen M. Henning

Google what you want to know and you may find hundreds of personal opinions about a specific Volvo. Sure some are posted by people who earn a living selling/maintaining Volvo and are therefore worth nothing at all. But through you research, you shall find some info that is truly valuable.

To me, CR is worth an opinion. They still screw up once in a while. And with cars, they do NOT always get it right. The sample of data on which they rely is not always appropriate for the conclusions they are reaching.

They usually get the major trends in the automotive industry, but they sometimes fail when dealing with the specifics.

My 2 cents. I've been suscrib>Sammy wrote:

Reply to
Sammy

True. But the Volvos are built well enough - or at least the ones they designed in Sweden. The winters there alone are the reason they tended to be built a bit better. They had to be to survive.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

The new ones seem to be screwed together just as good, but they are vastly more complicated then the older stuff... I just had a look under our 1993

960.... Not ONE SPEC of rust on the frame and we drive it in southern ontario - it's a rust belt area.

We have friends with a 2001 V70 2.4T, 130K Kms+ on the clock... routine service, a few computer module software updates (I always find that funny) and they love it.

Reply to
Rob Guenther

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.