2004 Turbo or 2002 non-Turbo V70, your choice?

Volvo2112 · Post by **Volvo2112** » 17 Sep 2015, 07:28

Hello all!
I have narrowed down my search to four V70's in the area. It basically comes down to this for me:

2004 Turbo - hate the color
2002 Turbo - love the color
2002 Non-Turbo - ok with color

Obviously, reliability and cost of repairs/maintenence trumps color, but I have found that the color of car goes a long way in my enjoyment of a car because I am a detail enthusiast.

ALL cars are 121 to 135k miles. ALL cars are close enough in price to not be an issue.

What would you go with?

Post by **GBS** » 17 Sep 2015, 09:44

First on my list is graphite interior, second is non-turbo, third is no sun roof... having said that I would consider an R as that sounds like fun. My V70 2.4T is just a ton of extra hoses with limited added driving pleasure, in my opinion. Still love my cars though.

Volvo2112 · Post by **Volvo2112** » 17 Sep 2015, 12:18

Thanks GBS.
I just noticed that one of the turbos is a 2.5T (2004) and the other is a T5 (2002). The T5 has me intriqued becuase it's the color I want (dark red). Is the high pressure vs. low pressure turbo a consideration with regards to complexity and reliability? If the 2.5T 2004 has way less hoses and bits to go wrong, I'll go with that, although it's gold

Post by **oragex** » 17 Sep 2015, 12:42

I would go with the one that had the typical issues already fixed, i.e. PCV replaced, control arm bushings replaced with Volvo parts, shock absorbers replaced, no CEM or recurrent electrical issues. I'd also look for a smooth shifting transmission when the engine is hot.

Skip any 2001-2002 models with fragile transmissions and costly throttle module repairs.

The small turbo works better in city driving and passing on the road. The 2.5T is perhaps a better choice and still a small pressure turbo, while the T5 is not exactly economical in any condition but it's easy when it comes to sell the car. Turbos in general are reliable but of course call for more repairs than a non turbo engine.

Gold - I believe it's called Maya - is surely .. apart, but now thinking I would have loved one. It's an unique Volvo color, very rare. Sure it's bling and attracts attention, not a good car for someone that likes discretion. But is also the kind of color that when you search for your car in the parking lot you can't hold some kind of a proud feeling.

waffleshill · Post by **waffleshill** » 17 Sep 2015, 13:09

If that T5 isn't a manual don't buy it. If you're looking at P2Rs as well they're a whole different ball game than an FWD V70. 4C, AWD, clutch slave for the M66 cars, valve bodies in the 06, a god awful turning circle. You have to own VIDA to own and fix a P2R yourself.

Post by **GBS** » 17 Sep 2015, 14:59

I just mention the R thinking that if I was definitely going to get a turbo I'd go to that and go all the way, the mid stage turbo is in my opinion not worth the added complexity to me. This is probably highly personalized so much would depend on how you drive and what you like. That said our two 2.4T's have both been excellent for over 180k miles, that said I don't know how many times I've removed the turbo hose over engine... more times than I'd like to, that's for sure.

I don't think the T5 and 2.4T are very different but my experience is limited to 2.4T, I do think they have very similar hose and air intake configuration.

waffleshill · Post by **waffleshill** » 17 Sep 2015, 18:32

T5 and 2.4T are identical aside from turbo size, displacement, compression ratio, injectors IIRC, and tune.

Post by **vtl** » 17 Sep 2015, 19:17

I have 2002 V70 - FWD, N/A engine, and 2005 XC70 - AWD, 2.5T. Not only XC70 is more fun to drive (and AWD is very helpful in two feet of snow), but it also has so many small design flaws fixed compared to earlier year. Few examples: power steering pump's high pressure side is bolted on in 2005, for 2002 I had to buy a bracket when the pump spewed 1/2 quart of fluid; lower control arms in 2005 sit squarely on a vice for the front bushing replacement, 2002 has a curved form making this job 3x more complex.

Though I like seats in 2002 model year more.

waffleshill · Post by **waffleshill** » 18 Sep 2015, 07:43

The XC seats in general are more durable than the sport seats but less supportive. A 12 hour road trip in an XC70 isn't bad, but it's not as nice as 12 hours in an 04 V70R (I dislike the 05+ R seats, not enough support). Also HALDEX is wonderful but I would buy an 06-07 car because they have instant traction (the AOC is preloaded for AWD in 1/17 wheel revolution rather than 1/4).

I'd forget an FWD V70 and buy a 2005-2007 (06-07 preferred) XC70. You can expect 28 highway and a much better turning circle from the narrower tires/wheels.

Or, buy an R and live with the expenses that come with it.

Volvo2112 · Post by **Volvo2112** » 20 Sep 2015, 15:21

Welp, it came down to the fact that the non-turbo just didn't do it for me acceleration wise, and the interior looked like a generic fleet car compared yo the T5. I got a burgandy 02 T5 for $3k wirh 129k miles. Shifts like butter, pulls strong. Interior is excellent and the seats are amazing. The paint will be stunning after I undo the lot boy's detail job and go at it with Menzerna polishes and Collinite wax.
Suspension is where the accolades stop. I'm taking her for a look see tomorrow. I suspect sway bar bushings, drop links, possibly CV, shocks, and a bent wheel.