Thoughts on buying a new (to me) Volvo?

[capt jack]

With a view to the post-lockdown return to the office I'm thinking of splashing out on a new-to-me diesel for the 50 mile round trip commute, and save my old 97 S90 for high days and holidays.

A first look through Autotrader etc would suggest that I could get a very decent S60 (2004 to 2007) for anything between £2,500 and £4,000; or a much newer S80 (2010-2012) for perhaps up to around £6,000, or a V60 of much the same age for very similar money.

I've had a look at one S80 (2011), less than 80k miles, lovely car, under £6,000, another (2009) with 100k at £4k, and a brace of V60s of the same age, 100k miles, again for £6k. Now these look to be very nice cars, but a few things worry me.

Firstly, the electronic technology. I'm a bit old-fashioned, and I can get my head around the older S60 cars - all things considered they don't look too much different to our S70 really.

The tech on board the newer S80 and V60 cars is awesome, but is there a risk that at around 10 years old, this tech could become expensively troublesome? Some of the newer S60, S80 and V60 cars I've seen come with a veritable alphabet soup of acronyms. Is a lack of whizzy but arguably unnecessary technology the reason why really nice older S60 cars command the relatively high prices they appear so to do?

I'm coming from a 1997 S90 (which actually has a cassette player) for goodness sake! I know the way to the office, I can read a map, don't possess an I-Phone and am experienced enough to know what it's raining, so automatic rain-sensing wipers, self-dipping mirrors, sat-nav, integrated telephony, lane departure warnings and blue-tooth audio systems requiring a degree in quantum physics to operate really just don't mean a thing to me!

Secondly, the engines. It will have to be a diesel for the economy, but again, is older actually better? The older S60 cars I've looked at all have the 2.4 litre engine - some are badged D5. The newer cars are all 2 litre D3 engines. I've read very good things about the 2.4D and D5 engines, but only mixed reviews of the D3.

And if I go old enough, could I avoid DPFs, EGRs and swirl flaps altogether?

Does a 2006 S60 2.4D with 120k make more sense for example than a 2009 S80 2.4D with fewer miles, but the same £4,000 price tag? Both cars look very nice, have each had only two previous owners, and are for sale at reputable and established garages.

Perhaps I should mention that I appreciate that the S80 is a much bigger car with more rear passenger space, but my passenger-carrying requirements are occasional at most, so this really isn't an issue. It's more about quality, comfort, reliability, economy and well, good old-fashioned common-sense.

Thoughts and any direct experience of these particular cars will be very much appreciated.

Thanks

Jack

[griston64]

I have a 2012 V70 D5 215BHP. It does have a DPF but they are known to be pretty trouble free on that year and also the later one's don't have swirl flaps. i love it ! Very comfy ( I've driven from Bournemouth to Glasgow without stopping ) and also plenty of grunt and torque with the 215bhp D5 engine.

If you don't need an estate I would advise going for as late as you can S60/S80 D5

[Familyman 90]

The Volvo DPF's rarely cause problems themselves - more often something else breaks and the DPF acts up as a side effect. The horror stories and urban myth you hear from some quarters almost exclusively do not apply to the Volvo dry system.

Swirl flaps aren't a major issue - at best its an £8 part, at worst its an involved but otherwise straightforward afternoons work and £150 in parts. If you're feeling lazy you can simply lock them open with zero effect on driveability. Again, the horror stories are overstated.

I wouldn't worry too much about the guff and fairy tales you read on here. Find a good one that has been cared for with everything working properly, drive it properly (which you will with the distances you have planned), and maintain it well and there is every likelihood ownership experience.

I can't speak for the S60 etc, but certainly my D5 185 (albeit with Polestar) and 200 (standard) are both about 10-15% less thirsty than our 163, which is still in the family - any minor grief you might avoid in a really early D5 is liable to be outweighed over time in fuel costs and problems wrought by simple ageing.

With your budget you can't afford to be too clever. Just make sure that whatever you get is in A1 order with a full history no point buying one with faults or with an incomplete history when there are so many good ones to choose from.

Best of luck. Let us know what you get.

[Forg]

With respect to the concern over bells & whistles ... I remember the same being raised when EFI was starting to become more common on upper-spec cars.

Well that turned out to be a billionty times more reliable than the witchcraft voodoo carburetors. I don't think there's a need to be concerned with embiggened levels of technology in a new car.

[Sotosound]

A nice balance between excessive age and excessive technology might be a very late P2 old-shape S60 2.4D or D5 from, say, 2008. These cars feel as big in the front as a V70, and for commuting that's all that's really needed. You'd get a lot of car for your money plus a super sound system for CD playback, but you'd also have to find a goodun wherein, for instance, the clutch is in good order and a cambelt service isn't an urgent requirement, or wherein the automatic gearbox is working nicely.

A nice balance in a different, and possibly better direction might be an early new-shape S60. This will have the newer tech which, in my view at least, strikes an excellent balance between modern features and old-fashioned useability. There are nice touches like Bluetooth for phones, voice control, and configurable everything, but day-to-day usage is pretty much like the P2 cars, with buttons and knobs controlling everything that you need such as climate control, temperature, volume etc. In other words, you don't need to use the new technology if you don't want to.

I would choose the new-shape S60 over the V60 estate because it was a less popular car and can therefore be had at a lower price for the same driving experience on your commute.

The D3 engine in 134 bhp or 161 bhp form is a very sweet engine (moreso than the D5 IMO), and gives great performance and good economy. I've not heard any horror stories.

In terms of relative mpg figures between the various models for genuine Volvo engines, the best figures would probably come from a pre-2005 D5 engine without DPF, but that would be more than offset by the additional maintenance costs associated with such an old car (plus £250 - £340 annual VED!).

I would therefore just say "I'm going to buy a diesel" and not worry too much regarding D3, D4, D5, swirl flaps, DPFs, turbochargers etc. Just avoid the Ford 1.6 diesel that found its way into the S60, V60, V70 and S80, and the Ford 2.0 diesel that found its way into the early P3 V70s and S80s.

The Volvo 5-cylinder engines are in a different class IMHO, so a D3, D4 or D5 ought to be the order of the day.

My choice for your commute? A new-shape S60 D3.

[capt jack]

Thanks all. Managed to have a viewing of a 2012 V60 -and immediately decided it's not for me. I found the cabin very cramped in the front, and tiny in the back. The boot too.

I also had a sit in a 2011 S80 - already sold unfortunately, but it did help me to make up my mind.

A diesel S80 it will be - now all I need to do is to find a decent one for sale!

Cheers

Jack

[Kev0607]

Originally Posted by capt jack

Thanks all. Managed to have a viewing of a 2012 V60 -and immediately decided it's not for me. I found the cabin very cramped in the front, and tiny in the back. The boot too.

I also had a sit in a 2011 S80 - already sold unfortunately, but it did help me to make up my mind.

A diesel S80 it will be - now all I need to do is to find a decent one for sale!

Cheers

Jack

I have a S80 (2007 plate)… older than the one you sat in, but they didn’t change much in those years.

Great commuter car for sure… Comfortable seats, plenty of boot space, very comfortable to drive, good rear leg room, well equipped with cruise control etc.

I’d advise you go for an SE Lux model. That’s the only thing I wish I did (mine is an SE). The headlights are much better on the SE Lux being xenon, but the SE has the ordinary halogen ones. At night time, the halogen ones are useless. I’ve fitted brighter halogen light bulbs, but they still aren’t as good as xenon that you get on SE Lux models.

If buying an auto, make sure it shifts nicely. Don’t be alarmed if the gear changes are slow at first, as this is normal up until the transmission warms up. However, when warm, the changes should be smooth & quick. You shouldn’t feel any jolts or clunky shifts when warm.

Good luck with the search.

[Tannaton]

For me, I would have a look for a early facelift P2 S60 or V70 - i.e. the new shape with clear headlights but still has the 163 BHP E3 engine.

But I think it's fair to say the electrics on the P3 models are highly reliable.

[Laird Scooby]

Alternatively, take the £6k+ you're planning on splashing out on something newer and diseasel and have your S90 converted to LPG.

At 60-70p/L, the approximate cost will be about the same per day as a diseasel doing 45-50mpg on your commute.

Also your S90 is probably at the lowest point of its sale value at the moment. That means it can't depreciate any more. Your "new" car will depreciate from the moment you buy it and in two years will almost certainly depreciate more than the cost of the LPG conversion on your S90 - meanwhile you've been paying for all sorts of toys you won't use because you don't have a degree in Quantum Physics.

As a trade-in after two years, your "new" car will probably be worth about 1/3 of what you gave for it and about 1/2 as a private sale.
During that time your S90 will have started to go up in value - difficult to put a number on it but as an example, when i bought my 760 5 years ago, most 7xx were going for £2-300, even with a long MoT. Look through ebay at the "Completed Sales" and you'll see you can easily add a zero on the end now as most are selling for £2-3000 - some are stupidly higher (like £6-7k) but most are in that £2-3k region.

In short, what you save on fuel buying a "new" diseasel will be massively offset by depreciation. An LPG conversion on your S90 will save you such a big capital outlay and in time will pay for the conversion in fuel savings and start to appreciate in value. Also saves the stress of finding that "elusive right car" and then possibly finding it's got a string of problems that the previous owner knew were coming and got shut just in time.

Bottom line is it's your money and therefore your choice, i know what i'd do though!

[capt jack]

Thanks Dave

Yes, I had considered LPG. It's something I've done before very successfully with a p1 V70 - and did over 250,000 trouble-free LPG miles.

My thinking is by keeping the S90 pristine and original - and without adding too many more miles - I stand a better chance of it appreciating in value. This year I had the car professionally valued for insurance. It's now covered by an agreed value policy at double what I paid for it.

As it stands it's a 120k car, with everything working pretty much as Volvo intended. In 5 years time, used sparingly and kept lovingly it'll have perhaps 140k on and still be largely original. And possibly worth maybe £5,000.

If I LPG and use it as a daily driver, in 5 years it will be a 200k car, with LPG kit in the engine bay, a tank in the boot and a hole in the side where the LPG filler goes. It will also have been subject to the daily battering of the the M62 and M18, plus half a dozen family holidays, and countless other indignities. And very probably not worth anywhere near £5,000.

I agree with your maths with regard to the LPG cost and payback, but I do think that the best chance of seeing the S90 appreciate is to keep it low mileage and original.

Cheers

Jack