My wife is due for a car to replace the p5. Her criteria is red volvo wagon with no rust (the p5 has lots). I don't know anything about volvos, but was wondering what my options are. She doesn't really care about performance, etc. I need something that gets good mileage, won't need expensive or constant maintenance, and fits to car seats. Does volvo make some thing like that. My budget is 10k or less.
When my wife was due with our second she had the same criteria - red Volvo wagon, just like her mom's and just what she had wanted since high school. Wound up leasing a new '98 V70 base model with auto trans as the only option. Great car for the 3 years we had it, but I can't speak to the long-term reliability. FWIW she's now in am XC90 - nothing like Volvo seats!
have one, but does newer = 91? PM me. A red wagon and everything.
mw wrote: I need something that gets good mileage,
Define "good mileage" as this is not really something Volvos are known for. For example, my mother has a '09 V50 (the smaller wagon) and is lucky when she gets MPG in the mid-20's. My g/f's parents have a '03 V70 with the T5 and AWD and they usually get in the low 20's at best.
Ian F wrote:mw wrote: I need something that gets good mileage,Define "good mileage" as this is not really something Volvos are known for. For example, my mother has a '09 V50 (the smaller wagon) and is lucky when she gets MPG in the mid-20's. My g/f's parents have a '03 V70 with the T5 and AWD and they usually get in the low 20's at best.
Good point. my typical fuel economy is between 22 and 24 if I keep my foot out of it. If you ever want to reel in, say, an unsuspecting loud exhaust Neon driver or backwards baseball capped Mustang guy, you can!
Most mid 90's and later Volvos were galvanized before paint so they are pretty tough at repelling rust (Speaking from salt lick Detroit).
KJ
I have a '96 850 that I just got and started working on. It's almost completely rust free despite having lived a really hard life of neglect! I was impressed. The only rust is where the paint was damaged - looks like a tire or tool tore up the front fender lip and took off some of the paint.
They're easy enough to work on. I replaced the complete suspension, front and rear, this past weekend with the only snags being the wheels were frozen to the hubs pretty badly and the passenger side tie rod jam nut was messed up, causing some difficulty getting it off.
Obviously at the ~$10k budget range you're in a different field than a '96 850. The V70 is the same car, the body style changed in 2001.
For example, my mother has a '09 V50 (the smaller wagon) and is lucky when she gets MPG in the mid-20's.
My mom's 03 s80 2.9 is avg'ing 25.5 right now. I got it for $5k+ttl with 95k on it.
Not a wagon but same weight as the v70s of the era which should be able to hit the same numbers.
A blue v70r is a dream of mine.
do all swedish cars get bad milage? Both of my Saabs averaged mid 20s no matter how gently I tried to drive them
In reply to mw: We have a 1999 Volvo V70 Cross Country, and it is a comfy old bus, but the back seat is way smaller than on my '03 Passat sedan. It's a tighter fit, length-wise, for a backwards-facing baby seat in the Volvo than in the Passat. Also, our '99 Volvo does not have the LATCH system for installing a child seat. I'm not sure what year Volvo started using it.
The Volvo (at least the Cross Country) isn't a sporty car, by any means. It handles better than my '77 Ford LTD did, but the Passat handles like a Lotus 7 compared to the Volvo.
But the Volvo is the most comfortable car I've spent any time driving, it can carry almost as much crap as my old Dodge Dakota, and the build quality and safety are unmatched.
Our 1999 V70 XC is technically all-wheel-drive, but it only sends about 15% power to the rear wheels under most conditions. If the somewhat fragile center differential fails, one inexpensive fix is to remove the rear driveshaft and drive it in FWD. Not a big loss, since the car is 85% FWD anyway.
It's a heavy car, and somewhat underpowered with the no-pressure turbo 2.4L 5-cylinder engine. But those engines are dead reliable and last forever.
The cupholders that slide out of the front armrest are flimsy and only hold a pop can or medium drink. On most used Volvos with that design, they'll already be broken for you.
The Volvo's automatic climate control is great. I seldom find I have to mess with it, but the Climatronic on my Passat is dreadful: "blast furnace" or "liquid nitrogen" with nothing between.
I almost never check the MPG, but on a long trip a few summers ago, we got nearly 26 mpg with the air on at speeds of 75-80.
We bought ours in March 2007 with about 100,000 miles for around $8,000. It's been a good car; they're a nice comfy couch if you want a break from driving a sports (or sporty) car.
Avoid the AWD ones. As the poster above me noted they can be fragile and are expensive to fix.
According to my guy at the import car repair place: "Stay away from the AWD and the Turbos and they are really good, add either one or both and they are not."
I had a 2006 V50 T5 (6-speed) FWD wagon for a year. It was a fun car to drive but, did not have a lot of room inside. The backseat was bigger than the Volvo S60 that I also had at the time. The car had plenty of power and the suspension was sporty enough. I averaged around 25-28mpg city and 30-35mpg highway. However, the car was at the dealer 7 times in the first year for the check engine light. They never could figure out why. I ended up with a settlement from Volvo and traded the car in for a 2006 Acura TSX. The TSX has been bulletproof for 4.5 years and 60,000 miles.
Maintenance.
Volvo's love maintenance. They ain't a Toyota.
Early awd was fragile, later was not. Turbos don't overstress anything, the gearbox and such is more than robust enough for it.
Newer is smaller. At least inside. Our V70 is smaller than our 740 was, and the later V70's are smaller still.
Easy to work on? Check out what's involved with replacing the PCV valve and decide. No, not every job is that stupidly complex, but plenty are.
None of the bricks are gas sippers.
'07 XC70 will achieve 28 mpg highway as long as I stay within 10 mph of the posted limit. Around town it is a fuel pig.
Keep in mind, it weighs nearly 3700 pounds.
I did not buy it for fuel economy.
Oddly enough I just found a 2005 V50 T5 AWD 6-speed locally. I don't need a new car or payments but this thing is in good shape with 150k on it. Also rare as hell with all the options it has. Naturally, the check engine light is on, although it ran just fine on the road test-4 wheel tire chirping AWD launches and running up over 100mph. I can only imagine what it would be like with the boost turned up.
mw wrote: My wife is due for a car to replace the p5. Her criteria is red volvo wagon with no rust (the p5 has lots). I don't know anything about volvos, but was wondering what my options are. She doesn't really care about performance, etc. I need something that gets good mileage, won't need expensive or constant maintenance, and fits to car seats. Does volvo make some thing like that. My budget is 10k or less.
I'll chime in here as we've have/had a couple of these (P1 1996 850 and P2 2001 V70 t5). I do all the service except for the occasional VIDA link up to the computer in Sweden - no crap.
Good mileage: depends on your definition. 30 mpg, forget it. around town stop and go less than 20, highway about 26.
Expensive or constant maintenance:
Constant stuff first - sounds like you live in a rust area (P5 rust), if the roads are rough, you will be replacing control arms, ball joints, sway bar links, strut mounts, spring seats and various other bushings at a pretty regularly. These cars are famous for annoying suspension clunks. Also, the elaborate array of engine/transmission mounts also time out pretty quickly. All annoying, but not particularly expensive. Both cars had these. P2 worse than P1.
Get used to the CEL, it is a "Volvo for life" thing. Some cars have seemingly unidentifiable code throwing issues. P2 worse here.
ABS issues - many cars have TRACS lights on. These are usually due to cracked solder joints in the ABS module. Either locate and resolder or send out. Both cars had these.
These are the most common Volvo specific issues besides regular stuff like timing belts, switches, lights, etc.
Expensive (if sent out): A/C issues with 850's. Evaporators fail/leak on many. Good size job to remove entire dash, not a dirty job just a good size job.
Transmission issues with P2's. AW55-50's (5 speed auto) have valve body issues and earlier cars '01-'02 also had a "neutral control" Volvoism programmed into TCM that destroyed many a transmission and lost many a customer "for life". Some of these gearboxes are getting expensive and some cannot be interchanged between different engined/spec'd cars. (Ask me how I know).
Early cars w/ 4 speed autos are much more robust in this regard.
Manuals are pretty damn rare in this size wagon.
I would avoid an AWD car either newer or old. Older had weaker bevel drive setup and newer has more problematic trans.
Fit two car seats: No problem. Built in booster seats and third row seats (rear facing) in some cars, too.
The tub/chassis, doors and panels on these cars are all very well built. Corrosion protection is excellent. Brake lines are copper-nickel alloy. Hardware is very good. All engines are pretty robust.
There is a reason these cars seem to depreciate like crazy and that reason is they do need a lot of attention. Attention that not every repair shop is willing to take on, i.e. reason for Volvo/Swedish specific shops.
I think you'd get less headache and save some dough by going w/ a MY 2000 or earlier car. Parts for these are easier to find and are less expensive. There really is no tradeoff in mileage, performance, ride or handling by going with the earlier car. It has many airbags, too. I bet you could find a real nice one for half your budget.
I have an '06 S80, 2.5T motor and AWD. The V70 from 2004- would be my advice, although they will be near the top of your range. The motors are all very durable, whether turbo or not - I'd argue that the 2.5T in the '04+ is superior in every way to the older 2.4T, by virtue of the dual VVT cams, slightly larger turbo, and healthy torque curve. You might tease slightly better mileage out of the NA motor, but ~27MPG highway and 19MPG around town is what I get. The AWD is a personal choice - I am absolutely loving it, and you will typically see fewer problems than the 'R' models, which twist up 300lb-ft of torque.
If you do the maintenance yourself, you can operate one of these cars very inexpensively. As mentioned, you need to do this regularly to avoid costly failures.
You might be able to find a stripper V70, 5spd, cloth seats, no sunroof and manual climate control for under $5K - that's probably the closest thing to a Volvo Camry out there.
11110000 wrote: You might be able to find a stripper V70, 5spd, cloth seats, no sunroof and manual climate control for under $5K - that's probably the closest thing to a Volvo Camry out there.
A friend bought almost this car but it had leather. It was over $5k but had Konis and springs, sways, turbo-back exhaust, upgraded brakes and tires etc.
I'm not a FWD guy, but I would trade my 89 745t in a heartbeat
You'll need to log in to post.
