Advice on Purchasing Super Low Mileage S60 R

TBrown00 · Post by **TBrown00** » 28 Apr 2015, 16:27

I've always been interested in owning an S60 R and a few have popped up locally. I'm looking at either replacing my 854 GLT or using it as a commuter and using the R as a fun/weekend car. I was looking for an 07 ideally due to the updated AWD (heard it's more effective?).

Anyway an 04 with 7k mi and an 05 with 17k are being sold by a local used Volvo dealer. It'd be nice to have one with lower mileage, but I'm worried about it being too low (not driven enough). I'm unsure on the maintenance history as I haven't inquired on them yet. I can't find any CA smog history for the 04 and found a single test in 08 for the 05 model.

I'm worried about the fluids potentially sitting there maybe sludging up over time from not being driven much. I'd get it checked out by either my local indy I take my larger 850 jobs to or the dealer nearby. From the photos I can tell that the brake rotors are completely rusted on the one with 17k but the tires look fairly new/in good shape. They rotors have rusted on the 04 as well, but there's a clean area in the middle where the pad makes most of its contact and its tires look decent.

Just wondering if these are worth pursuing (would be driving about an hour and a half) from those of you more knowledgeable than I. I'd love to own one, but not if it's going to be a money pit. Looking for general advice on a 10 year old car with barely any miles.

There's also an 04 a little closer to me with 109k but a 5 owner history.

Thanks!

Post by **oragex** » 28 Apr 2015, 18:11

I'm not sure if I read well, did you mean a 2004 with only 7,000 miles or rather 70,000 miles?

These 04 and 05 could be problematic with the 4wd system, as well as with the 4C suspension, both expensive. I also read stories about the engine liners issues
http://www.vivaperformance.com/darton-c ... o-engines/

A very rusted rotor means to me a not so well taken care car.

TBrown00 · Post by **TBrown00** » 28 Apr 2015, 20:08

oragex wrote:I'm not sure if I read well, did you mean a 2004 with only 7,000 miles or rather 70,000 miles?

...

Yes, 7,000 Miles only.

oragex wrote:These 04 and 05 could be problematic with the 4wd system, as well as with the 4C suspension, both expensive. I also read stories about the engine liners issues

What's different between the 4C on the earlier vs later ones?

Post by **oragex** » 29 Apr 2015, 08:24

My guess is a 7000 miles car should not have rust on the rotors, except on the area where the pads make contact, that's very normal to be rusted if the car didn't move for a while.

A 7000 miles 10 years car is exceptionally rare, even rarer for a R. If the miles are true, it must have been a collectors car that sat in a garage. I don't believe this was a grandma that was driving it 5 miles per week to the Church service. But I might be wrong (for the grandma thing, you never know

So if the car sat and had never had an oil change, even if the dealer just changed it, it means there was 10 years old oil sitting in the engine. Should not cause issues on a 7000 miles engine, but not sure about a 17000 miles engine.

One thing is sure. In a car that has been barely driven for 10 years, the fuel injectors have a lot of fuel varnish and restricted flow. They need removed and cleaned in an ultrasonic bath machine and flow checked. There is no other way to clean them properly. Also, hope the gas in the gas tank is not 10 years old.

For other fluids, all brake, coolant and steering fluid need replaced asap. I don't think there should be any damage to these systems.

To check the miles are real, look at the exhaust pipe - no deep rust at all, the hanger should not have deep rust. The control arm bushings should not have any wear. Drivers seat left upper side (gets wear when we enter the car) should look like new and identical to the right side. I would suggest not to judge by the exterior paint or the detailing of the car. The paint on a 100000 miles Volvo still looks like a new one.

Post by **abscate** » 29 Apr 2015, 10:22

I think it is pretty hard to spoof mileage on a P2 car - the computers keep pretty close track of everything on these cars. I wouldn't worry about the low miles and trying to invent scenarios of how that might fail - run it, change fluids and enjoy it!!

Post by **GBS** » 29 Apr 2015, 10:47

7k miles on a 2004, that's amazing! I've never had the pleasure of owning an R but like you I've wanted one. My only problem is the cost for parts, its definitely $$$ to maintain. I'd certainly do a thorough background check on titles and owners to see if there are any red flags in the past, make sure you run the VIN numbers and so on, with that few miles the history should be very clean. You can do that before seeing the car too.

Post by **chrism** » 29 Apr 2015, 10:54

If the car is 10 years old I would be inclined to go ahead and replace the timing belt. We always watch the mileage as our guide as to when it should be replaced but it seems I've read to replace it at 105,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first. It would be a shame to have it snap on such a nice car.

Post by **oragex** » 29 Apr 2015, 12:22

As abscale mentions, the true miles are stored in the car's main computer and cannot be modified but with a rigorous procedure. However, the displayed miles on the cluster can be trafficked in less than 5 minutes by replacing the odometer with on with lower miles. But the car's true miles can still be verified with a computer at any Volvo dealer.

Post by **jimmy57** » 29 Apr 2015, 12:25

The AWD system is little different. The 06 and later have "Instant Traction" which means the pressure on the AOC/Haldex clutch is higher for a faint less front wheel slip before the rear torque is dialed up.
If it is an automatic then the 06 and later have the better angle gear. No difference if manual for angle gear.
Unless they did 7000 miles of less than 10 mile trips then there would be no worries for fluids, etc. The 10 year timing belt change is a good idea as already suggested.

Post by **oragex** » 29 Apr 2015, 19:02

chrism wrote:If the car is 10 years old I would be inclined to go ahead and replace the timing belt. We always watch the mileage as our guide as to when it should be replaced but it seems I've read to replace it at 105,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first. It would be a shame to have it snap on such a nice car.

Especially since replacing the belt is rather easy on this vehicle. On a 10 years old belt the rubber will get hard more like plastic, so if a crack develops, the belt may snap sooner compared with a newer more flexible belt. One easy thing to do is to slowly turn the engine and check visually each portion of the belt for the smallest crack.