1. Home
  2. Volvo automobiles
  3. Volvo long-term reliability

Volvo long-term reliability

Hi all,

I am looking at purchasing a used Volvo and am having trouble finding information about the long-term prospects of the newer models.

I know Volvo built a reputation for cars that are just getting broken in at the 150-200Kkm mark but that was with 2xx and 7xx (and to some extent 9xx) series cars. My recently wrecked 850 had 230Kkm and ran like a top, absolutely a flawless ride.

But is an S40 with 230Kkm still at the midpoint of its life or is it near the end? I feel some confidence in looking at V70 and S70 with those numbers but the S40 is a significant departure from anything they've sold here before (a Japanese/Dutch project, I've read) so I don't know if I should back away from them.

I've already disqualified AWD models because of the critical effect minor maintenance tasks can have on their longevity.

So this one coming from the third owner who only has records for the 4 years he's owned it:

formatting link
or this one from the second owner with complete records from the start:
formatting link
Or is it foolish to look at an S40 or V40 with more than 200Kkm?

So much indecision and so little time!

Thanks for your considered opinions :) blurp

Reply to
blurp
Loading thread data ...

The newer the Volvo, the lesser the total lifetime mileage you can expect.

It went downhill when Ford took over, and god help us if the chinamen get there paws on it.

Reply to
Mr. V

I agree w/Tony...the 940's are a good bet...Keep 'em maintained and they yield years of service...

We are coming up on 300,000 miles w/the usual items, nothing major on our 1993 .......

Reply to
~^ beancounter ~^

Actually the opposite is true. The 850 unibody design is made with galvanized steel. This is also part of the improved safety in the newer FWD Volvos, the better galvanizing insures that the body maintains its strength.

The most rusted out vehicle I ever owned was a 1971 Volvo and it had less than 100,000 miles on it. The rocker panels had to be replaced before I could sell it. My '93 850 with 150,000 miles, '95 850 with

150,000 miles and '01 V70XC with 120,000 miles are all rust free and look like new inside and out.

None have ever had CV joint problems. I can guarantee you the FWD Volvos never have rear end problems. Kidding aside, Volvo went from RWD to FWD for safety reasons. RWD cars are cheap to make, but they sacrifice strength and handling, and wrap the gas tank around the rear axle.

Reply to
Stephen Henning

Volvo started galvanizing in 1986 with the 240 series, I don't know if the early 700 series were galvanized or not.

The FWD/RWD debate has raged on for decades with no clear winner. FWD is simpler and less expensive to manufacture, the entire power unit is installed as a single package. It also has significantly lower parasitic drag since there are fewer moving parts. RWD requires a separate rear axle assembly, driveshaft, multiple mounts, etc. The fuel tank is not wrapped around the axle, in the 240 it is behind the axle and in the

700/900 cars it is forward of the axle. Both FWD and RWD Volvos have excellent safety records, I've never heard of a fuel tank rupture occurring. Handling is different, but again, I see no clear winner, either one can be "better" depending on the circumstances.

Personally I prefer RWD, but mostly due to the easier maintenance and repair of a longitudinally mounted engine than any handling merits of one over the other. I've done enough work on transverse engines in FWD cars to know it isn't something I enjoy.

Reply to
James Sweet
Reply to
~^ beancounter ~^

Ok so we've determined that the old cars that we know last well do, in fact, last well. With the exception of an '01 XC70 I'm not seeing too much input regarding cars sold since the turn of the century.

The XC70 is only an option if its provenance is above suspicion (i.e. if owned from new). Minor maintenance issues can develop into big headaches with this car so I'm not considering it.

To veer back toward the OP, does anyone have experience with, say, an S40 with high kms?

You can take really good care of a Toyota Camry but when it hits 235K you're on borrowed time. Not so for a 240 or a 960 or an 850. What about an S40? Does it carry on Volvo's tradition of durability?

Thanks, blurp

Reply to
blurp

The only new car I bought was a 1996 850 Turbo, and it had many problems.

Rattles, loose trim, a leaking rear main seal: but worst of all it was an evil handling car, thanks to FWD, low profile tires, and sloppy suspension design and set up from the factory.

So I sold it, then bought and restored my current daily driver, a 1982

244 Turbo.

It is much more solid, has better steering feel, and is built like a tank.

The car is over 300K, and looks and runs fine.

I also have a 1986 740 Turbo I restored, and my wife drives a 940 Turbo.

In my experience, all three older Volvos are better built than the

850; their engines are stout and understressed and will last longer than the 5 cylinder, their interiors are of sturdier construction, and being RWD their handling is better.

Just my two cents.

Reply to
Mr. V

I fell in love with FWD when I rented a car in Maui to drive on the infamous "Road to Hanna". It is a coastal road, about 50 miles long, with 600 curves and 54 bridges and absolutely gorgeous. It is said to take you closer to heaven than any other road and they aren't kidding. We started the journey at dawn and have breakfast in Hana so that other traffic wouldn't be in our way. It was great to have a car where you could step on the gas when the rear end started to slide. That was probably the most fun I have had in a car.

Recently on a rain-slickened road, my XC70's rear started to slide on a curve. I stepped on the gas in it and pulled it out of the slide. I wasn't sure what was going to happen. It felt great. That is something you could never do in the RWDs.

I did have a Subaru before the FWD and AWD Volvo's came out and it had scary-wicked torque steer. It had so much torque steer that you had to really muscle the steering wheel when you passed someone. I realize how great the Volvo FWDs and AWDs that I have owned are. They were totally neutral.

Reply to
Stephen Henning

My 2000 US spec. S40 that I purchased new in Nov. of 1999 just turned

Reply to
Steve and Amy Bernth

Thanks, that's helpful to know! I've gone ahead with a 2001 S40 1.9T and it seems peppy but smaller than I'm used to. It has 232Kkm on it so I hope it continues to hold up. Seems good so far...

Thanks again, blurp

Reply to
Serial # 19781010

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.