I think I want a Volvo wagon, please educate me

67chevelleSS496 · Post by **67chevelleSS496** » 29 Feb 2012, 23:35

Never owned a volvo, but looking into getting a wagon soon. I don't know enough yet to decide on which model and years are preferable.

In my current state of Volvo ignorance, I am leaning towards a ~1996 850, mostly because I prefer the exterior aesthetics.

Turbo sounds great, but I have never owned a turbo car and I assume there is a tradeoff for the gains. Do they increase the maintenance costs, reduce drivetrain longevity, double the fuel costs, etc?

I plan on being the only mechanic that works on the car, so if there is a cutoff year when I will need proprietary software interface or whatnot, I would prefer avoid that. I am a mechanic by trade, but not late model cars; just automated industrial machinery and pre-1970 muscle cars and hot rods. I have wrenched on later model cars, but never had to go beyond a generic OBD-II scanner to deal with the computers.

How well can these things be made to corner and brake?
Is the RWD better in those aspects?

Do the all wheel drive versions bring anything to the table, or do they just complicate maintenance costs?

Anyhow, please help me catch up on what the Volvo enthusiasts already know.

Post by **jblackburn** » 01 Mar 2012, 07:48

Turbo sounds great, but I have never owned a turbo car and I assume there is a tradeoff for the gains. Do they increase the maintenance costs, reduce drivetrain longevity, double the fuel costs, etc?

Really the only drawback to having a turbo is the number of oil and coolant connections that, at this age, will leak fluids all over the place. A little bit of maintenance will fix that on up again, so if you're a good mechanic, have at it. They're a little thirsty on gas, expect mileage of 18 city/26+ highway.

The turbos, motors, and transmissions in these cars will last well past 200,000 miles. Other, small issues may drive you crazy before then, but you just can't kill the cars. They're also about as quick as most modern V6's with a relatively small (2.3 liter) displacement engine - so there's the tradeoff of waiting for the turbo to boost up from a stop before you have any power. That said, from a rolling start, you can blow the wheels off a V8 Mustang...not that that's a real accomplishment or anything, but it's pretty funny.

Stay away from AWD. They're expensive to to fix if something goes wrong with the AWD system (and it does!).

1999+ need software for most things. 1996-1998 would be my choice for a DIY Volvo. You might be able to find a V70 T5 in good shape - with the wood grain interior, I think the -70 interior looks much better; with the black plastic, it looks kinda cheap.

For any car you look at, take it for a drive and listen for clunks, rattles, and scan for any codes in the computer. Look under the hood for oil leaks, weird tire wear, check to see if the A/C works, and ask when the last timing belt was done.

Post by **writer100** » 01 Mar 2012, 09:17

from a rolling start, you can blow the wheels off a V8 Mustang...

Sorry, that's nonsense.

Post by **jblackburn** » 01 Mar 2012, 09:18

Sorry, that's nonsense.

Ok, not a new 5.0. But the crappy early 2000's ones people think are awesome, sure.

That said, from a rolling start,

I don't care what the numbers on paper say; go race one. The T5 gets a terrible start, but it REALLY pulls after 30.

Post by **fazool** » 01 Mar 2012, 09:25

From your forum name, I see some common background: I also used to wrench on old American musclecars and the defining car of my automotive life was my 67 Chevelle. I bet I have a little understanding of your (automotive) mindset so maybe my perspective can help too.

I owned three Chevelles (67,67,72) so I am a pretty dedicated fan, however, I don't care for the rounded 68-72 years. I like a square design. The 67 (and 66) Chevelles were boxy and strong looking. Thats what attracted me to my first Volvo - a 740. It was boxy and brawny. I also liked the quad headlights.

Its no suprise (to me) that you like this style.

I had questions about the turbo's too. In the mid 80's I bought a brand new turbocharged Pontiac. The turbocharger failed within a year and the maintenance costs were astronomical.

My first, second and fourth Volvo's are NA (normally aspirated), my third and fifth are turbocharged. I haven't seen any real difference in maintainence due to the turbo. These are more like the turbochargers on commercial diesel trucks - they last a ridiculously long time and you don't even think about them as fragile wear items.

I did have one car with a turbo replaced (prior owner did it) but in the past 5+ years neither turbo has even sneezed.

If you do a wiki search on any of those models you will find a nice history page.

The 740sedan-740wagon-760sedan-760wagon lineup was replaced by
the 940sedan-940wagon-960sedan-960wagon cars which were replaced by
the S90sedan-V90wagon cars (the higher and lower trims were combined)
This is the last rear wheel drive lineup ending in 1998.

In a different FWD lineup starting and running later but overlapping for some years,
the 850sedan-850wagon cars were replaced by
the S70sedan-V70wagon which were then replaced by
the S60sedan-XC70wagon

There were some transitional models/years (for example the V70XC, etc.) but the list above is the general 1980-2000 ish evolution of the front and read drive lines. The RWD line was replaced by an all new FWD higher luxury S80 car. There are also smaller models and coupes in the history (C70,S40,C30, V50, etc.) But, the models you are interested in are above.

As for maintaining the vehicle, my 740 was the easiest vehicle I've ever owned. It was actually enjoyable to work on it. After busting knuckles and fighting rusty everythings, this car was a pleasure to work on. For example, changing the rear brakes: The whole car is zinc coated so the body doesn't rust, the caliper bolts are yellow chromate plated and contained in a rubber bellows so they never rust. One side is a hinge pin. Unbolt one (never rusty) bolt, swing the calipers up and the pads fall out. Slide new pads in and insert one bolt. I've done two-wheel brake jobs in my garage in 20 minutes (and that includes jacking up the car and removing the tires).

The engine compartment is open and accessible. (Most) everything on a Volvo just makes SENSE. Its as if you worked on cars for 20 years then got a different car and every little thing you would have changed to make it better, you did.

The 700 series are like battle tanks and they go forever.

Because of their age, however, you are going to start having trouble finding used parts and junkyards are starting to thin out on their supply.

The ergonomics of the 700 and 850 series are both excellent and comfortable to drive. The 850 insides feels more like an old Chevy with a little more open-ness to the lower half of the car (less cockpit feel than the 700 in my opinion).

The earlier 850's have an LED "morse code" indicator for engine codes (requires no equipment to read).

I had extensively maintained my RWD 740 and do a fair amount on our FWD 850. Its a real tie. I think the 700's are easier to maintain and work on, but the 850's are much better performing and handling and they have better options and features.

The 850's are super popular and parts are easy to come by and ther eis a lot more "knowledge" out there on the web for the 850's due to their popularity.

I like the 850 exterior styling a little better. I like the 700 interiors a little better. I like the maintainability of the 700 a little better. I like the availability of parts/info on the 850 better. I like the simplicity of the 700 RWD system better. I like the performance and economy of the 850 FWD system better.

Its a real toss up.

I would reccomend an 850 for availability of parts and info. I would stick to earlier years for self diagnostics.

Also, read this link:

https://www.matthewsvolvosite.com/forums ... =4&t=46812

Post by **writer100** » 01 Mar 2012, 09:36

I don't care what the numbers on paper say

Exactly. Never, ever, let the facts get in the way of a baseless claim.

But for anybody who does care about the numbers, it is obvious that even the "old crappy" GT Mustangs-- let alone the newer ones-- could handily blow the doors off of a T5. it wouldn't even be that close.

Don't take my word for it:

http://www.zeroto60times.com/Ford-0-60-mph-Times.html

http://www.zeroto60times.com/Volvo-0-60-mph-Times.html

obayha · Post by **obayha** » 01 Mar 2012, 10:25

I have a 98 v70t5 with a few miles on it. Doing my own work on it has saved me from letting it go. Shops are way to expensive on these cars and after a few errors things are coming together. Others on here are more versed on all the models, but the 98 seems like a strong runner. I do baby it, cause it drives me 100 miles a day to work.
I have taken it from an oily mess to a pretty good dry spot on the driveway. At 27.7 average mpg, I will keep it a while longer.
Good luck on your search.
Shane

67chevelleSS496 · Post by **67chevelleSS496** » 01 Mar 2012, 10:36

Thanks for the response.
Sounds like a turbo model is nothing to shy away from, reliability and maintenance wise. I would certainly prefer the HP increase.
AWD is something to run from.

What are the differences between an 850 and an an early (pre-2000) v70?

Post by **jblackburn** » 01 Mar 2012, 11:27

What are the differences between an 850 and an an early (pre-2000) v70?

Pretty much the body and interior. The 1998 V70 is exactly the same under the hood and under the body as the 1997 850, with the exception of a slightly bigger turbo.

1999-2000's were changed in about 2489024 different ways under the hood, with a different computer system and electronic throttle control. Improved in some ways, but I think they're less of a DIY-ers car.