Buying a used RWD volvo, which one should I go for?

adk793 · Post by **adk793** » 22 Oct 2011, 22:19

I've owned and driven a couple different volvos in the past so I know about these cars. I am looking to spend $2-3K on a used RWD (more reliable) volvo, had a couple cars in mind, not sure which one I should settle on.

I owned an S70 GLT/SE and then a V70 XC AWD/SE. Loved how they drove but the XC was majorly unreliable.
My aunt owned a 1996 960 wagon, that one was reliable, i liked the way it drove. She now drives a 240 GL but as great as those cars are, its not something I am looking to buy.

Which Volvo should I go for (I will consider a FWD S70 but I hear the reliability on the RWD/older models is much better. Which car/year should I get. What are some things to look out for? How are they on gas and power? How reliable are they/what are common problems?

Thanks

Post by **precopster** » 22 Oct 2011, 22:36

A 95 and newer 960/S90/V90 is a great car. The engines are pretty much a stretched five and parts for them shared including pistons, conrods and timing gear. The 95 and over use a 28mm timing belt with a long change interval. Also the 95 and newer wagons have the IRS on the rear axle. If you don't like 240s you probably won't like a 940 due to sharing the same 2.3 litre four cylinder and gearboxes.

The gearboxes in the sixes are suitable for light or heavy towing as long as fluid is clean and a transmission oil cooler is fitted. They were shared with Lexus and some Toyota V8 models so they are TOUGH.

Economy is not as good as the fives with the bodies being slightly heavier and the temptation to use the power available.

The front wheel drive range have a better chassis with much better handling from factory and much more parts availability due to more of them out there.

Which year XC did you own? Up to '98 they don't seem to have many major mechanical flaws however '99 to '03 have the infamous ETM (electronic throttle management) provided by Magnetti Marelli.

adk793 · Post by **adk793** » 22 Oct 2011, 22:50

precopster wrote: Which year XC did you own? Up to '98 they don't seem to have many major mechanical flaws however '99 to '03 have the infamous ETM (electronic throttle management) provided by Magnetti Marelli.

I owned a 2000 V70 XC AWD/SE. I bought it with 92K mile and by 100K miles, it had the following problems: Transmission fluid leak, turbo seal blew so it leaked oil like crazy, heater core and heater hoses leaked coolant, the bevel gear (front and back) leaked gear oil, Little stuff like doorlocks and stuff were starting to go. The left tie rod was bad, along with other stuff wrong with it. The engine light kept turning on for different sensors. That doesnt include the over $2K of repairs I put into it. I am a big believer in pro active maintenance and take care of all my cars really well. It was a lemon, and I got unlucky. I sold at after having it for 8 months and bought a Saab, best car ever but I want a volvo now.

So if I got you correctly, the 95+ 960/90 series volvo's are the good cars to buy. I want something durable and reliable, I would go for a 7 series, they look better than the 240's. And if I'm correct the 760/early 960's had a straight 6. How were those?

SimLyons · Post by **SimLyons** » 23 Oct 2011, 00:15

My own experience was the very best car I had in that range: the '92 940 Turbo/intercooler with 'Turbo Plus" kit (by Volvo) which added some extra kick to give 220+ HP without really affectig reliability. I had two of them and they never lacked power or torque. The 940 was basically the 7 series with improvements. The 4 cylinder engine had been refined to its most reliable point and everyone has parts and they are VERY accessible for DIY.

Post by **precopster** » 23 Oct 2011, 00:33

760s got a French V6 only. The 960 was the first straight six late '91 with a skinny 21mm timing belt which wasn't improved until '94 when it got the 23mm timing belt. A exhaust cam side dampener extended the early belt life but I'm not convinced they won't shear early so I replace mine regularly. I think it's rated at 50K miles. Later ones do 70kMiles or more.

The later '95 plus styling is nicer with front suspension mirroring the front drive model's system.

My '93 960 wagon has been great but my heater core is in need and is now bypassed. The wiring looms can cause grief if old/split but you have coil on plug technology from the first straight six made (no leads)

If you DIY a timing belt/water pump change is very easy compared to the fives due to great access.

adk793 · Post by **adk793** » 25 Oct 2011, 15:16

Thanks for the info. Of the 7 and 9 series, which one would you consider the best buy. Was the PRV V6 in the 760's a good engine?
Also in my experience, the late 90's/early 2000's turbochargers were not among the best, and had bad seals, causing them to leak/break. What were the turbo's like for the 7 and early 9 series.

Post by **precopster** » 25 Oct 2011, 16:53

The PRV engine had problems and was not multi point injected until '88. Access to common service items was poor. I owned one and while a smooth engine changing spark plugs was a major event. Cam followers required adjustment regularly and this was a big job. Water pump replacement requred inlet manifold removal where thin 10mm bolts to retain it would snap.

The fours in the 940s (and their turbos) had good reception both for reliability and longevity though turbos often respond to the quality and frequency of oil changes. If the engine had irregular oil changes the turbo would be due to be rebuilt. My 740 turbo ran for 30,000 miles with minimal maintenance until a hose leaked and head gasket failed. They are non-interference motors and therefore cam belt changes could be stretched out. Not the smoothest engine in the world, though.

The 960 B6304 straight six was a great engine whose first series (92-93) were marred by the skinny 21mm timing belts and reports of cracked blocks (I had a cracked one myself which was replaced but it's still my daily driver) These motors are very smooth and probably the most enjoyable NA engine I've had in a Volvo. The later ('95-'98) engines had a more even torque spread and lower max power but still very lively.

Hope this helps

ken1464 · Post by **ken1464** » 25 Oct 2011, 21:38

Any of the RWD cars, I have a 740, 960, v70xc, and a crashed 940 which i replaced with the 960 wagon, The 4 cyl, is easier to maintain than the 6cyl, But the 6 runs and drives very nice, drive a couple and see for yourself, The 93 940 was, is still my favorite. They have all been reliable and easy to care for.

Kirby J · Post by **Kirby J** » 29 Oct 2011, 15:19

93 940 NA
418k daily driver
It has never had the valve cover off of the motor.
If you perform routine, preventative, maintenance, I think these cars will run forever! I have worn through the drivers seat, though.

Kirby J

shegarty · Post by **shegarty** » 02 Nov 2011, 07:32

i've had great luck with my 90 940 turbo wagon - while i agree that the 4 cyl motors are not the smoothest she still has lots of get up and go in her even after 350k+ km - if you opt for a turbo version heed the warnings on regular/religious oil changes - i use my 740 for all kinds of heavy lifting as well, in the summer she tows the camper and the rest of the year she is the renovation workhorse carting building supplies and making runs to the dump

i also own a 94 850 and while i appreciate the refinement of the ride quality and engine performance the maintenanace intervals seem to be a little for frequent - although that may rest on the shoulders of the PO

another plus of the 4 cyl RWD models is the space in the engine compartment and ease of access to almost every regularly serviced part (except the distributor!)