Advice on what year and model to buy (wagon)

blandis · Post by **blandis** » 27 Aug 2011, 14:46

Looking to buy a 70 series wagon, need some advice.

Had a 98 S70 GLT and was a great car. Sold it a couple years ago with 160K and kick myself in the rear for doing so. Great car.

I do stay on top of maintaince, and work on my own cars. Between this site and VS, did my own timing belt, WP, struts, abs module, axles, ect during ownership. Not bragging, just want you to know I have the tools and willing to work on whatever I purchase.

Looking to buy a wagon and trying to stay under $8000. Could spend more. Seems like most under that price point have some good solid life left in them, and depreciation is pretty much run its course. From the research, and memory, I have done seems like the 98-02 Cross Country and AWD wagons have driveline and transmission issues. Any issues with the 03-05 wagons? There are a few high mile 04-05 that are below my budget.

Is there a "chart" of the good and bads of all the S/V models and years.

Thanks in advance for all your help.

Post by **JRL** » 27 Aug 2011, 17:13

https://www.matthewsvolvosite.com/forums ... =6&t=41593
THE best 2000 around.

If you want a P2 you're better off to buy 04 and newer, and you won't find a decent one for 8K that doesn't need work

Ringo · Post by **Ringo** » 12 Aug 2018, 14:22

I'd like to resuscitate this old thread as I am wondering the same question as the O.P.

I have a '99 v70 XC whose days are numbered as the trans. has decided not to have a Reverse option anymore. I would like to stay clear of new model changes that had problems. I do want an estate/ station wagon. I don't really need or want all wheel drive.

What is the year for v70 that you folks would say are the best years - when looking for another solid daily driver?

Post by **Rattnalle** » 12 Aug 2018, 14:35

As before, in 2004 most major flaws were fixed so that's what I'd look at. And I'd also avoid AWD unless I really needed it on a regular basis. It just adds moving parts and fuel consumption. So the XC70 is out since it wasn't sold without.

Early facelift cars, 05, had some issues with foggy plastic headlight lenses. Easily spotted but hard to fix if it's on the inside. 2004 still had glass and proper wipers.

And also the 2.5T is a really nice engine to drive and pairs well with the auto transmission. Much better than the NAs that lack much of the low rev torque and therefore it shifts more often on uphills and the like.

Post by **oragex** » 12 Aug 2018, 18:39

True that I don't like how the transmission is shiting from a stop with the n/a, too much shitfting and too early shifting. The non turbo is not that lazy from a stop, plus is less complex and gets really good mpg on the road, but does not have good passing power.

On 2004 one thing to check is water ingress on the CEM (first year affected with this issue).

Post by **abscate** » 12 Aug 2018, 19:35

The 2004 also has a heat soak issue on the CEM IN hot climates

1999 Volvo owners are strong women, good looking men, and they are both all above Average

Post by **Rattnalle** » 12 Aug 2018, 23:47

oragex wrote: ↑12 Aug 2018, 18:39 True that I don't like how the transmission is shiting from a stop with the n/a, too much shitfting and too early shifting. The non turbo is not that lazy from a stop, plus is less complex and gets really good mpg on the road, but does not have good passing power.

On 2004 one thing to check is water ingress on the CEM (first year affected with this issue).

I don't mind when accelerating but I find the NA shifts a bit more and acts a bit more nervously when you add load such as an uphill or when driving with stuff like bikes on the outside of the car. The turbo stays in gear and just plows on. Both are perfectly drivable and I don't mind overtaking in the NA it just always seems to require a kickdown for some reason

Milage is the same until you start using the power, the the turbo uses more.

Georgeandkira · Post by **Georgeandkira** » 13 Aug 2018, 13:43

Yo blandis: Be warned, everyone on this board has heard my tale so I'll be brief.
I spent TWO YEARS looking for a replacement of my 2002 of 9 years. An '06 or '07 was my goal. I found damaged examples, misrepresented examples and one true cream puff which smelled strongly of electrical fire.

I settled on an '07 non-turbo with history at a dealership 220 miles away. Today it has fewer than 89K miles. It's for sale.

Here's the rub. Everyone talks about power and passing. I suppose you would too as you are a T5 owner/driver. I'm a small engine/bigger car guy because I like to fight the stereotype. I know I can't afford a real zoom car and someone's old "muscle-beater" is among the last things I'd ever want to buy.

But more importantly, once you're on a highway you're supposed to look down the road to see where the other cars are. I find it easy to work around gaps in moving traffic in order to "get ahead". I also can see down the road to spot some lunkhead who can't pass a slow truck and has created a clog. There's NOTHING you can do about this common traffic occurrence. Ergo, I say the turbo punch thing is way cool but way overrated. Maybe Texas is different.

Keep in mind my other car is a '99 Saab 9-5 SE. It has turbo snap so I know what everyone's talking about.

My '07 doesn't exhibit the nervous shifting at slow speeds described above. It had had its trans fluid changed at the right time. My '02 was from the early troubled years but a reflash (Volvo p/n 30677036) and LubeGard red cured most of its choppiness. The young man who test drove it and bought it was an engineer. He was blown away by the car's smoothness. It had 198,600 miles on it.

You're going to find that most people who buy these cars keep them. G&K

Post by **Rattnalle** » 13 Aug 2018, 13:57

The nervousness I'm talking about is mostly when the car is heavily loaded and you drive where it's hilly. It tends to have a hard time deciding what gear it likes when you're starting to run out of torque. If you don't stuff the car with heavy objects or stick a load of bikes out back and/or live where it's flat you probably won't notice at all.

And I agree power really isn't needed, it's just nice to have. I've owned both the low pressure turbo and the NA and I know which one I prefer even though both are perfectly drivable engines. Oh and the LTP isn't "sporty" like the high power Saab Aeros. It's more low key, just an extra nice and even pull from 1500 rpm and up.

Post by **jimmy57** » 13 Aug 2018, 14:39

CEM water intrusion is an 05 up issue for P2. Really just 05 and 06 as they did some modes to improve sealing.
The change for 05 had the top of CEM coming through the opening under cowl cover. Ice forming and then thawing at the opening due to interior heat was a major cause. The 04 down P2 CEM was wholly inside and the harness pass-through wasn't prone to letting any water in or ice damming. 03-04 P2 are good cars. Nothing wrong with the older since the plastic headlamps are cheap and sand and clearcoat is a good fix for hazy ones.