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: http://tinyurl.com/dxc28a

or this one from the second owner with complete records from the
start: http://tinyurl.com/croguw

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

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.

"Mr. V" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

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

Gross sour grapes!

My '95 850 has served me very well, 150k miles and I am keeping it until
2011 when I will be in Sweden and get another Volvo.

My '01 XC70 has served me well also, 120k miles and I have no plans of
selling it.
--
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
http://rhodyman.net/homevo.html

Stephen Henning wrote:
> "Mr. V" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> The newer the Volvo, the lesser the total lifetime mileage you can
>> expect.
>
> Gross sour grapes!
>
> My '95 850 has served me very well, 150k miles and I am keeping it until
> 2011 when I will be in Sweden and get another Volvo.
>
> My '01 XC70 has served me well also, 120k miles and I have no plans of
> selling it.


Ford didn't seem to get their hands in there much. Generally speaking
though the newer the car, the more complex it is, and the more stuff
there is to break. It's a tradeoff between features/comfort and
dependability/serviceability. They seem to still hold up reasonably well
though.

i take care of my volvo's, they seem to take care of me just
fine......



On Apr 18, 12:20*am, James Sweet <jamesswe...@trashmail.net> wrote:
> Stephen Henning wrote:
> > *"Mr. V" <allagosh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The newer the Volvo, the lesser the total lifetime mileage you can
> >> expect.
>
> > Gross sour grapes!
>
> > My '95 850 has served me very well, 150k miles and I am keeping it until
> > 2011 when I will be in Sweden and get another Volvo.
>
> > My '01 XC70 has served me well also, 120k miles and I have no plans of
> > selling it.
>
> Ford didn't seem to get their hands in there much. Generally speaking
> though the newer the car, the more complex it is, and the more stuff
> there is to break. It's a tradeoff between features/comfort and
> dependability/serviceability. They seem to still hold up reasonably well
> though.

James Sweet wrote:
> Stephen Henning wrote:
>> "Mr. V" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> The newer the Volvo, the lesser the total lifetime mileage you can
>>> expect.
>>
>> Gross sour grapes!
>>
>> My '95 850 has served me very well, 150k miles and I am keeping it
>> until 2011 when I will be in Sweden and get another Volvo.
>>
>> My '01 XC70 has served me well also, 120k miles and I have no plans of
>> selling it.
>
>
> Ford didn't seem to get their hands in there much. Generally speaking
> though the newer the car, the more complex it is, and the more stuff
> there is to break. It's a tradeoff between features/comfort and
> dependability/serviceability. They seem to still hold up reasonably well
> though.

I'd generally agree with this, although I can say that the RWD cars are
much more robust than the newer ones. The newers ones are also alot
cheaper than the older ones and designed for a more mass market fashion
rather than long life time. For instance most of the big RWD cars were
galvanised, the FWD ones are not, any 940s with no crash damage still
looks like it came out of the showroom. FWD is more susceptible to CV
joint problems. Newer ones are more efficient, prettier and have more
gadgets.

The main thing I have noticed is that the older 850s we looked at were
in a very poor state internally compared with the 940s. Broken bits of
interiors, faulty windows, engine check light on, loose steering,
generally pretty horrible. I guess if they are looked after they will
be ok and many on here testify to it, but in comparison many Ford owners
also say the same, but they are the guys that really look after their cars.

About 6 years ago I looked at an 850T5R, it was in terrible condition
and it just could not put the power down onto the road, where the 940 I
eventually purchased really gives a kick up the arse from 1st gear, and
can be easily tuned for the same power.

My 95 940 Turbo is showing little signs of aging, other than bushes
hardening up and a leaky sun roof (the sealing lip is the only
non-galvanised part of the car), just a few more to replace now. My
wheels still look new compared to my partners 97 BMW, its wheel are very
corroded. I have had to overhaul the turbo, but that is the only real
wear item (every 130Kmiles).

The only thing you really need to worry about on a 940 is lack of oil
changes as some people view on older cars is to not look after them, run
them into the ground as it were. Some may exhibit cooling problems and
need replacement radiators or head gasket, but these are easy jobs which
probably only need doing once following long periods of neglect.

--
Tony

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 .......

Tony <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I'd generally agree with this, although I can say that the RWD cars are
> much more robust than the newer ones. The newers ones are also alot
> cheaper than the older ones and designed for a more mass market fashion
> rather than long life time. For instance most of the big RWD cars were
> galvanised, the FWD ones are not, any 940s with no crash damage still
> looks like it came out of the showroom. FWD is more susceptible to CV
> joint problems. Newer ones are more efficient, prettier and have more
> gadgets.

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.
--
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
http://rhodyman.net/homevo.html

Stephen Henning wrote:
> Tony <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I'd generally agree with this, although I can say that the RWD cars are
>> much more robust than the newer ones. The newers ones are also alot
>> cheaper than the older ones and designed for a more mass market fashion
>> rather than long life time. For instance most of the big RWD cars were
>> galvanised, the FWD ones are not, any 940s with no crash damage still
>> looks like it came out of the showroom. FWD is more susceptible to CV
>> joint problems. Newer ones are more efficient, prettier and have more
>> gadgets.
>
> 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.


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.

i like 'em both...they each have their place in
driving and rallying......in the end though...i think
i would rather be "pushed" than "pulled"......





On Apr 21, 11:34*am, James Sweet <jamesswe...@trashmail.net> wrote:
> Stephen Henning wrote:
> > Tony <Nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'd generally agree with this, although I can say that the RWD cars are
> >> much more robust than the newer ones. *The newers ones are also alot
> >> cheaper than the older ones and designed for a more mass market fashion
> >> rather than long life time. *For instance most of the big RWD cars were
> >> galvanised, the FWD ones are not, any 940s with no crash damage still
> >> looks like it came out of the showroom. *FWD is more susceptible to CV
> >> joint problems. *Newer ones are more efficient, prettier and have more
> >> gadgets.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -