1998 Volvo V70 A modernish Volvo to upgrade to?

[ramilio]

Thankyou for the feedback so far.

To clarify - I'm really after a suggestion of a more modern Volvo that has similar reliability and maintenance costs to my 1998 V70.

I consider the V70 to be a safe car for it's age, but keen to get some of the additional safety engineering/features that has been developed since then.

I've had great experiences with Japanese brands including Toyota and Subaru - I've found them extremely reliable and relatively easy/cheap to maintain. I do prefer the character of my Volvo however - even though it does require slightly more attention.

[sk55]

I was at Volvo dealer the other day. The new Volvo are so computerized LCD tach. You can't even change the tranny oil without hooking up laptop to it.

I hope others will chime in on how hard is it to DIY the new Volvos.

[mecheng]

So. You want the reliability of a European car, and you accept the extra maintenance... If you don't see the oxymoron here, I'll point you to a different one.

I think Ramilio has made a fair assessment. I don't see "reliable" and "maintenance-intensive" as being at opposite ends of a single spectrum. It seems to me that reliability and maintenance are two separate considerations.

An "unreliable" car is inherently unreliable - it tends to break, whether or not you keep up with maintenance. This is largely due to design, build, and materials quality making failures unpredictable. By contrast, cars like the 850 tend to be predictable if you keep up with maintenance: failures are limited to a relatively small number of components, but they will bite you hard if you don't keep up. To explain my confused ramblings, I have put together a table projecting this multidimensional spectrum over the space of the contemporaries of the 850.

Code: Select all

                        
                     Reliable     Unreliable
                 ------------------------------
High-maintenance |    Volvo     |     VW      |
                 ------------------------------
Low-maintenance  |    Honda     |     GM      |
                 ------------------------------

Table 1: '90s cars reliability/maintenance matrix, by manufacturer

I am submitting this new synthesis of ideas to Nature for immediate publication.

The Honda Quadrant had such an impact on the car-buying public that we now consider it the standard, and the rest of the industry has only caught up recently. Now you can expect any car you buy new to last 250,000 miles just on regular maintenance. I think it's great. I like these early FWD Volvos for completely arbitrary reasons, and I'm willing to put up with their shenanigans because of that, but if I ever move on, it'll be to something that doesn't require such a strict work ethic to live with.

I like this matrix and agree 100% as an owner of Honda and Volvo, and why I would never buy Audi/VW.

[Sommerfeldt]

The reputation of Japanese Tin being reliable is buoyed by the suburban mindset that buys new, runs them for seven years without incident then trades them in, declaring them trouble free.

So the '86 Corolla that finally gave up the ghost in 2002 was... what? Exception to prove the rule?

- S

[abscate]

They make fine cars, purpose built for their market and life cycle, just like a Kleenex. Perfect for driving to work and Jiffy lube for oil changes.

But 17 years later no one will be dropping a stock Corolla into third and dusting off a BMW as his T5 spools up with a big smile on his face....

[FLXC90]

So a post 2002 S60/V70 with the 2.5 NA or 2.5T, or a 2.4T S40 maybe 2003-2007?

[cn90]

Go for 2004-2006 models (S60, S80, XC90 etc.) with 2.5T engine.