Truth is Volvo has some "good ones" and some not so good. The '98 v70 was the very first production year for that model... and it's well known to have had more issues that say a '96,'97 850 for example. Bear in mind the first year (late '93) the 850 came out it had issues then as well. I will say this... Toyota makes a good car. I'd say you just were at the wrong place at the wrong time on this car. There will be others who have the same year and model you have and swear it was perfect, but in the end, statistically, the '98 v70 has had more than it's share of issues. FWIW
I have owned Volvos for the past 12 years but my experience with my '98 v70r AWD has turned me off and sent me running to Toyota. this vehicle has been in and out for repairs so much- averages to at least once a month. Little things but aggravating. Brake pads that onlly last 16000km, steering rack needed replacement at 100,000km, seals that go resulting in smoke pouring out of engine when on vacation, -on and on. Is this a lemon or has Volvo quality gone down. I spend about $1500/yr on maintenance- too much.
Is this typical- are Volvos now so fussy that high maintenance is the norm?
The 98 model of the XC seems to have the most issues... seems like from
98-00 Volvo made some pretty bad cars. The new ones seem fine tho, two dealer salesmen told me they wouldn't touch anything 98-01, that these were problem solving years for too many models, they said they changed too much at once. Of course this is a dealer opionion, they want to push new products, but I tend to believe that 98-00 were bad years.
Toyota makes good cars, good cars for people who don't give a damn about driving, and just need an vehicular appliance to get from point A to B. They are geared towards people who don't car how it drives as long as it is smooth and quiet... They are boring mechanically, and there interiors are sleep inducing, just plain uninteresting to look at and touch... tho at least they are pretty durable.
I can't see a Volvo, VW, Audi, BMW, MB owner going to a Japanese car.... I'm completely turned off of Japanese cars (minus Acura), but then again my principal car is a VW Golf, and I also drive a 960 wagon... once as you drive these cars it's hard to go back.
IMO the original posters car was a lemon
16000 miles on the brakes.... should be around 100K Kms+, we got 118KKms on our 960's pads, the 11 year old rotors with 145K on them are still on the car, with a BIT of meat to spare.... they will need changing soon (year maybe).
The '98 & '99 V70 was one of the worst cars Volvo came out with. The brakes and electrical system were the main problems. The power equipment and body hardware were also troublesome. They did a complete redesign in '01 which has proved very reliable. My '01 V70 XC has found this to be true. I always get scheduled maintenance by the dealer. That is a good idea on any modern vehicle.
FWIW, I have a '99 S-70, which I bought new. Its my wifes car & she hates it. You just look at it wrong & the paint scratches. The plastic laminate on the dash fell apart within months. It was my first Volvo, and will be my last. The replacement for this car will likely be an Audi, which is a much better car IMHO. (I put almost 300K on a late 80's Quattro with few problems)
I have owned Toyota's for years, (I have 2 now, a Tacoma P/U & Landcruiser) and you basically jus put gas & them & go; forever. Great cars.
I have gotten a little more life out of the front brake pads than the OP, maybe 20-25K miles on the first couple of changes. Then Volvo must have changed the lining as the 3rd went almost 50K; but then the rotors were worn out!
You know, I'd think much more highly of Japanese cars if it weren't for all the rice boy "racers" running around, their "customized" cars are virtually all so utterly bland, they all turn out looking exactly the same, always with that childish toy plastic car appearance.
Audi now is just as flimsy. If you want true reliability, get a used, mint condition late 90's E or S class(before they changed to the new bubble-eyed style) - they are built like tanks, and despite their age, they will outlast anything new. Finding one that was owned by an elderly person with 20-40K on it shouldn't be impossible, either.
Our S40 (50K miles) has been great on reliability - basically just scheduled maintenance. Only deviation are the headlights which burn out with great frequency. However this is only a minor annoyance.
Our S60 (16K miles) has been good on maintenance so far. However, I find the S60 a waste of a car with very little resemblance to its predecesor - seems as if Volvo is moving in new direction of more flash and glitz. For this reason, I don't think we will get another Volvo.
One note on routine maintenance - we had Honda's before our Volvos. Yes, the Honda's were ultra-reliable. However, we did spend more on routine, scheduled maintenance. I am guessing they replace parts more often, but who knows.
I used to feel exactly the same way and owned several VWs and Volvos during the 80s and 90s. Ownership hassles and costs sent me looking at the Japanese.
The Acuras IMO put the competing model Volvos to shame if stations wagons and AWD are not important for you.
I replaced my '96 850 with an '03 loaded Honda Accord. This is so much more car for so much less money than an S60 that the choice was an easy one for me. The '03 Accord out drives my '96 850 in all respects except braking distance. Cornering, ride and acceleration all kick the Volvo's butt.
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.