Volvo Opinions

In My Humble Opinion
1

I’m gonna be in the market for a used car soon. My old one is a 1997 Ford T-Bird that has been an absolute dream (Never seen the shop, knock on wood) but it has 100,000 miles, and I don’t trust american cars after 100,000. Due to body damage, the car is wothless, so if the tranny or engine goes, the car is gone. I’m getting married in almost exactly 1 year, and my fiance has a daughter, so I wanna buy something a bit more practical.

I bought a T-Bird because it came with a V8 and was reasonably fast, which I consider important for being “in control” on interstate roads. The horsepower gives me the ability to choose where in the traffic flow I am.

SO now it’s time to buy a new car, and I’m thinking a 4 door, safe car is the way to go. BUT, accelleration is still important.

So Now I’ve started looking at Volvo 850’s and S70’s. Money is a serious consideration, and so I’ve been looking at models with about 40-60K miles.

What are people’s opinions of these cars. I’ve had one person told me his 850 started falling apart after 100,000 miles. I’m not about to buy something like a VOLVO if it’s not gonna last. I know the old 240s and stuff are ridiculously reliable, but I don’t like them at-all.

The 850’s and S70’s in the T5 model are nice, quick, and safe. BUT, how is the reliability once the car gets some miles on it? A car that needs not a thing to 100,000 and then falls apart is worthless to me, because I like to drive cars until the wheels fall off.

This hasn’t happened to the TBird yet, but it will, so Im getting prepared now.

Any opinions (or other suggestions) will be appreciated.

Thanks everyone,

Steve
(Note, I’ve checked the websites like carpoint and stuch…now I’m looking for anecdotal evidence)

2

'98 S70 with the 5 cylinder turbo (is that the T5?) owner here.

Reliability is an issue - there seems to be a steady stream of $450 fixes that happen - about 4 a year, from problems with power windows, to problems putting the car in Park and then getting it out, to problems with little minor stuff I don’t want to have to worry about. The car is fast and powerful and accelerates well, but given the standards that have been set by Japanese cars, it requires more attention and $$ that it should.

Bottom line? I don’t see my family getting another one, which ultimately is the test for a car. I would definitely go with a Honda/Lexus/Toyota…

3

I’m so saddened to hear that, WordMan. We’re trading in our sedan for a station wagon and really had our hearts set on a Cross Country. :frowning:

I don’t want a Japanese car, though. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

4

I have an s70 and love it.
There were some initial problems for about the first 6 months which the dealer took care of promptly and I haven’t had any thing major go wrong since (it’s been about 5 years).

I don’t have a turbo though - not sure if that makes a difference.

A co-worker bought a Cross Country about 6 months ago and had a very similar experience, some initial problems the dealer took care of and then smooth sailing. I know this does not speak well for the initial quality, and my experience amy not be typical, but I certainly don’t consider the car a lemon.

5

Parts for volvos are pretty expensive. Plus, those anti lock brakes are expensive sometimes, e.g. $2000 is not uncommon for an estimate. I know two people who got estimates in that range. One had to pay more than $3,000 for the brake computer, pads, etc.

6

Why don’t you like the old 240s? I’m driving an '84 240 turbo that’s creeping up on 200,000 miles, and it runs fine. Hell, the only thing wrong with it is some rust on the body.

7

Well, JuanitaTech, my family only owns one - so it only represents one data point. I offered our experience in response to the query in the OP, but please to research to see if our situation is shared by others, it may turn out that we just have, well, not lemon, but car with more probs than most…
[hijack]
Hey, I just realized - this is the second car thread you and I ended up in JuanitaTech - after that Beetle thread where somebody got uppity for your stating that you didn’t know that old-style Beetles were still in production…

[/hijack]

8

I spoke with a gentleman who managed the service department at a Volvo dealership. Apparantly, Volvo expects extremely tight tolerances from all its engine systems. If the Mass Air Sensor is 2 degrees out of whack, there goes $500 bucks. One plug wire down .2 volts, $700. (just examples) Add to that the $3000+ 60,000 mile service (WTF?) and you have one very expensive to maintain auto.

They are very safe, and the old ones will run forever. I’m simply not impressed with the engineering over the last 10 years.

One good alternative may be the Audi A4 wagon. Just as safe, even more fun to drive, and a little cheaper to maintain.

It really is to bad you don’t care for Japanese cars. I recently drove the new L.L. Bean H6 Legacy Outback and it was nice. My wife absolutely loved it and she doesn’t even like wagons.

9

We picked up a used Volvo with 111,000 miles on it for my daughers to use, and drive a fair distance to school. It’s been pretty reliable (one breakdown requiring towing) but it has been expensive to maintain. Everything that happens to it costs more money than I expect. My old Lexus with 212,000 miles on it is cheaper to service.

10

I’d have to agree with the “expensive to maintain” - it seems my father is always forking out tons o cash to Valentine Volvo…

My family has had many a Volvo;
-an old 1978 240 (Virginia) which was certainly the most reliable
-a 1991 740 Turbo (Vern) which is nearing 300,000 kms - my sister doesn’t take particularly good care of it and it usually needs something. It also leaks something - the suspicion is it’s leaking power steering fluid - the thing drives like a tank
-a 1996 850 Turbo (Vinnie) who needed an entirely new transmission and clutch last year
-and a 2001 S70 (Vincent) which I think is trouble free so far.

However, they’ve got some serious power…

The father is looking to buy one of the new SUV’s

11

Sadly, the newer Volvos may be less well engineered. 1978 through 1986 were the years of the million mile Volvos. I had a 1982 that pretty much ran forever.

I recently was forced to donate the old beast and bought a 1988 740 turbo. This is a swell car and the turbo package makes it really fun to drive. Parts and maintenance can be steep, but the cars are incredibly reliable. In addition, the armor plating makes them fantastically safe to drive. The old Volvos were designed to withstand a 60 MPH head-on collision and permit the driver to walk away from it.

Think of how often you see a dead Volvo by the side of the road. I see more Mercedes Benzs broken down than Volvos.

12

I had a 760GLE… one great car… the trun radius was better than anything I’ve ever driven… safer than anything I’ve had with the exception of my currnet car: 99 328i And was completely trouble free… I wish I stll had it… you truely feel safe behind one…

13

My mom has a 2000 C70 convertible, which is in no uncertain terms a piece of shit. We have had it back to the dealership too many times to count because of problems with their “Dolby Pro Logic Surround” stereo, which is very screwy with the radio. The handles on the backs of the seats, which the backseat passengers use to get out, pull off with little force. The top sticks. The stock Pirelli tires wore down after 10,000 miles - and Mom’s not peeling rubber, I assure you. Pieces of leather and other interior bits are fading very quickly for a $40,000 luxury convertible - our 1982 Chrysler LeBaron convertible looks better on the inside in places. My brother worked at Ford for a stint, and said from what he’d heard, Volvos have gone way, way down in quality since Ford bought them. Ours was, however, manufactured in Goteborg, Sweden, not in the U.S. (which they may be doing now, I don’t know). So I will not touch a late-model Volvo with a ten-foot pole. I’m very happy with my new Honda Accord and would highly recommend it, though you said you’re not in the market for a Japanese car - might I ask why?

14

Just a note. I, author of the OP, did not state I won’t drive a Japanese car…my choice has been whittled to the Volvo and the Accord, I believe, but my testicles tend to push me more towards the Volvo (that magic word Turbo coupled with 249 horsepower make me intrigued…whereas the accord with it’s 200 horsepower [not including the new 2003] makes me kinda feel like I’d be settling.)

The engineering/reliability concerns of modern Volvos, though (which have been repeated here, and elsewhere) are making me look stronger at the Hondas with the Accords.

But I never said I wouldn’t buy a Japanese car…that was JuanitaTech in a reply.

15

Oh and allow me to add (RUDE, Steve, so Rude)

Thank you one and all for your experiences and opinions. As someone who only buys used cars, and is living on a (granted, self imposed) tight budget, buying a good car, at a good price, that will last me a long time is extremely important, and information like this (from sources I trust) is a vital part to that process.

Thanks again!

Steve

16

Sorry about that. I misinterpreted what I skimmed. If I were you, I would really, really look into the Accord. REALLY.

That’s my 2¢.

And if you have any questions about the Accord and my experience (I’ve had it since March and it has almost 3,000 miles on it), feel free to e-mail me.

17

One more thing, seeing as it’s 2 AM and I couldn’t possibly, you know, fit everything into one post…

I’ve got the 4-cyl. Accord, and I think it’s sportier, in some ways, than the Volvo with the turbo. The Volvo’s got a lot of power, yes, but it goes out of its way to keep it hidden from you. You watch the needle rise but you don’t feel it so much. I feel acceleration in my Accord and it has better road feel and handling. Again, my opinion, contrasting a C70 with the Accord. Test drive whichever cars you look at (duh) and decide which one feels better to you.

18

SanibelMan is right, you will definitely feel the power of the Accord sooner, but the torque will not be a match for your Thunderbird. (except for 2003 and newer 240 HP models)

The big problem is, Honda stopped making wagons in 97, and never made a wagon with a V6. The best they had was 2.2L 140Hp I4. Fun, but definitely not a rocket.

Big Engine Wagons:
Subaru Legacy H6 212 HP 210 Lb-Ft
VW Passat - 190Hp 206 Lb-Ft or 270hp W8 (yeah baby)
Audi A4 Avant - 220 Hp 221 Lb-Ft
BMW 325 Sport Wagon - 184 HP 175 Lb-Ft

Again, reliability and safety, Subaru. Fun to drive - Audi.

19

Big-Ole-Steve, try to find yourself a creampuff 740 turbo with all the trimmings. At least test drive one or two that are for sale in your area. It is a well designed, SAFE vehicle that is tons of fun to drive. No, it won’t zoom around like a jet fighter. The armor plate it carries prohibits that. Yes, it is enjoyable to drive if you aren’t hung up on squealing your tires. Personally, I would not feel safe in a Honda Accord. I’ve driven a Civic before and while they are a peppy little car, colliding with a SUV is going to turn it into a hockey puck. It breaks my heart to think that Ford has raped out the quality of this fine Scandinavian marque.

20

I agree with Zenster: my sister’s 740 Turbo, for all its odd minor problems, is still a great car, and I defintely feel the power when I step on the gas. I love my little Sentra, but it sure feels less “safe” after I’ve driven the Volvo for a while.