1998 Volvo V70 A modernish Volvo to upgrade to?

ramilio · Post by **ramilio** » 30 Oct 2015, 17:36

Hi All,

I love my 1998 Volvo V70 N/A, but it's now got high kilometers and is looking a bit rough. My favorite aspects of this car are that it is solid, comfortable/powerful for long haul drives, and easy to maintain.

Having owned several European cars, I consider the 1998 V70 year model to be one of the most reliable I have owned. I wouldn't consider myself mechanically minded, but have managed to deal with all the V70 servicing needs/quirks such as PCV maintenance, gearbox fluid change, ignition system, servicing etc...

So, my question is, is there a more modern Volvo that has similar reliability/servicing requirements to my 1998 V70? My primary reason for wanting a more modern Volvo is to get some of the more modern safety features. Given my budget constraints, I'll probably be limited to a pre-2008 model.

I've read up on the 200-2004ish S80/S60 models, but they seem to have more transmission issues than I'm comfortable with. I'm willing to put in the extra bit of maintenance required to own a European car - but I do need something reliable.

Any suggestions of specific year/models that I should consider would be most appreciated.

Sommerfeldt · Post by **Sommerfeldt** » 01 Nov 2015, 01:38

ramilio wrote:I'm willing to put in the extra bit of maintenance required to own a European car

- S

Edit; OK, so I originally only posted the above "lols", and realized that might be construed as somewhat rude of me.
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.

Based just on that, I'd say get an American car instead. It'll be cheaper, have less reliability, less safety features, and, according to you, less maintenance...

- S

Post by **Homebrand** » 01 Nov 2015, 05:10

I wouldn't write the s60s off.
If you can find one with lowish miles that has a trouble free transmission then they're a great car. Comfortable, plenty of power, safe and a decent size.
The transmission issues are primarily the valve body issues.
If there is no current issue then the first thing to do would be to flush the old tranny fluid out and replace.

I got mine for $0 because it had the tranny issues and fixed it.
There's other bits that need doing, such as torque mounts, control arms etc. simply because of age but certainly doable by a home tinkerer.

I'm probably biased but the 2.4T S60 is a really nice ride and could probably be found quite cheap for early models.

Post by **abscate** » 01 Nov 2015, 06:24

The P2 model line from Volvo is great if you avoid the 2001. My 2005 just hit 100k and drives like new and gets 32 mpg with the 2.5 NA and 5 speed.

Post by **j-dawg** » 01 Nov 2015, 10:42

Sommerfeldt wrote: 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.

Post by **JimBee** » 01 Nov 2015, 11:13

But what about safety? I'm pretty committed to the 850 series partly because I've brought 3 back from the brink and get good (reliable) service out of them. I've complained about the hard ride a while ago, but tightening up things in the suspension, new shocks, etc., plus running the tires at 32 psi instead of 35 has made them liveable. Rear links on my 855 base could probably be replaced.

But driving or standing on the corner waiting to cross, the frequency of drivers on the phone or texting is an increasing concern for me. Blowing red lights, T-bones, making the news daily, tend to sway me toward keeping the 850's in service for the next 20 years. None of my 3 have really high miles (~ 160k miles), and I have some used parts in inventory, plus I assume the aftermarket suppliers will keep the frequent replacement parts around for a good while. Hopefully, Matt will keep this forum going!

As I talked with the owner of a long established body shop nearby he casually said the 850's are made like tanks, newer ones are cheap, tinny. His words.

In Minneapolis, I still see quite a few 850's, many of them still looking sharp. They're getting scarce in junk yards, though. A few years ago, at any time there would be 4 or 5 among the yards. For a body part, I could find the right color or wait for a bit and it would show up. Not so now.

What do others think?

Sommerfeldt · Post by **Sommerfeldt** » 01 Nov 2015, 11:15

I'm not sure I can agree with that, j-dawg, though I do understand what you mean.

The way I see it;

Unreliable car = high maintenance, due to more money/time spent replacing parts that break.
Unreliable car = high preventative maintenance, since you'll also spend more time/money on keeping ahead of the unreliable parts that will break. At least if you're one of those people who plan ahead.

On the other end of the spectrum, a reliable car will have solid parts that don't break, so you spend less time/money on those. A reliable car will also need less preventative maintenance to maintain good parts, and there's less need to keep up to make sure you maintain driveability.

Now, all cars have a general service schedule, so I'm not taking that into account, really. I haven't really thought of Hondas in particular, and they're not a European brand, but my benchmark for "low maintenance" has always been Toyotas. I "inherited" an '86 Corolla from my dad which ended up rolling about 250k miles (360k km) before it gave up the ghost - probably because it hardly saw any scheduled or unscheduled maintenance the last 100k... even then, it was a failed carb that killed it.

In any case, my point is that we spend a little time and a little money on maintenance and parts to keep our Volvos rolling and working perfectly. The owner of an unreliable car would spend a lot of time and/or a lot of money to keep the same functionality. I.e. much maintenance.

- S

Post by **j-dawg** » 01 Nov 2015, 15:54

It's a semantic distinction, but it gets back to your original post: from my perspective, the suggestion that a reliable car can need a lot of maintenance isn't self-contradictory. There is a distinction between a car that takes a lot of work but won't break down on you and a car that will break down no matter what, and that, it seems to me, is what OP is talking about.

Certainly the line is blurry: one could preemptively rebuild the transmission and electrical systems on a T6 S80 every 50,000 miles, for example, and call it scheduled preventive maintenance, but that would be absurd. I would consider that car unreliable. So where one draws the line between maintenance-intensive and unreliable is not well-defined, but I'd say the things an 850/S70 needs fall under maintenance.

As far as safety, any new car in 2015 is probably safer than a Volvo designed 25 years ago.

sk55 · Post by **sk55** » 01 Nov 2015, 19:54

ramilio wrote:Hi All,

I love my 1998 Volvo V70 N/A, but it's now got high kilometers and is looking a bit rough. My favorite aspects of this car are that it is solid, comfortable/powerful for long haul drives, and easy to maintain.

Having owned several European cars, I consider the 1998 V70 year model to be one of the most reliable I have owned. I wouldn't consider myself mechanically minded, but have managed to deal with all the V70 servicing needs/quirks such as PCV maintenance, gearbox fluid change, ignition system, servicing etc...

So, my question is, is there a more modern Volvo that has similar reliability/servicing requirements to my 1998 V70? My primary reason for wanting a more modern Volvo is to get some of the more modern safety features. Given my budget constraints, I'll probably be limited to a pre-2008 model.

I've read up on the 200-2004ish S80/S60 models, but they seem to have more transmission issues than I'm comfortable with. I'm willing to put in the extra bit of maintenance required to own a European car - but I do need something reliable.

Any suggestions of specific year/models that I should consider would be most appreciated.

when you say more modern safety features? what are you referring to 98 v70 has air bags, and pretty good ABS system.

i got 2 newish bmw 335xi and 330xi... so my 98 s70 is my new daily driver... i love it...easy of maintenance, cost of parts, just runs great for being a 15 year old car after i did a stage 0 on it.. if you want new bmw advice i can help you in that area..

seems like after 2000 volvo has more tranny problems and not really maintenance friendly anymore.

Post by **abscate** » 01 Nov 2015, 20:58

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.

If I had one I would trade it in as they are souless tin boxes devoid of panache, verve , and élan.thats élan , not flan.

My newest car in my driveway is 10 years old with 130,000 on it. The folks here drive these things for 3-4x longer than the Asian consumer mindset.