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.

 

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.

 

Still slower than my auto 264.

 

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

 

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.

 

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 drain right after 1998. The S60 is a much
better product, but I wouldn't touch it.

 

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

 

You are relying too much on Consumer Reports... They are not perfect,
yet.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Oh. Heh Yeah, Volvos actually customize very easily.

 

'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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 suscribing to CR for more than 15 years. They
are not God, they are humans and make mistakes, like you and I do.

 

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.

 

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.

Then again our 960 only shows its check engine light on initial startup, but
it's still 11 years old... Not the car if you want another 15 years out of
it... i'd give it another 5 years of smooth sailing before it gets really
expensive to keep it.