70,000 Mile Service Costs

[Doveaboy]

Oh, and I should have mentioned I've just had the 'Anti skid service' message too, going into Volvo dealer on Tuesday for diagnosis, but thanks to this forum I understand Volvo may well pay 100%. Even if they don't the dealer who sold it to me in August will be paying, I've told him that already (..Sale of Goods Act case law grasped in my sweaty little hand........).

Now where can I buy something else?

[markt1]

Ive just got rid of my 05 2litD because of the DPF issue and wanting a newer car ive now got a 09 s40 without the DPF filter thank the lord!
Its ok for Volvo and the goverment to decide they are fitting these Bas/ard DPF filters but who pays the price when they are due for service i will tell you who JOE PUBLIC because the lease companys have spat them out at 6months to 2yrs therefore they end up being owned by us lot so we pay the major co/k sucking DPF service its alll wrong and just another GREEN TAX BOLLAXZ.

[Volubilis]

Always look at the chassis number. YV blah blah 75, if its got a letter or another 5 after the 75, its got a DPF

[7050man]

Originally Posted by Doveaboy

Thanks matey. If true, that's enough prompting for me to get rid of the car, never heard anything so stupid as a 'service' that costs that much. It's not as if it's the greatest car in existence anyway, yes' it's looks smart but the equipment level on mine is pretty basic for a 'prestige' make from 2007 and the real mpg from the 1.6D is disappointing at 53mpg at best. My old lump of an Avensis estate used to do as much, but the first signs of a failing head gasket made me trade that in in a huge hurry. Repent at leisure, eh? (bangs head against wall.......)

If you get rid of car due to this service cost, the don't buy a Ford, Peugoet, Citroen, Mini as these may well also have a DPF that requires additive and replacement too.

This is the (high) price we pay for reducing particulate emmissions and of course everyone wants their pound of flesh at every stage so parts and labour total costs are dear. I do agree though, the replacement cost is very very high especially for an older car.

Unless you drive car mainly on motorway, my recomendation to anyone is not to buy a diesel. These modern filtered engines run on a very fine line regarding regeneration, and this I believe is what will kill good fuel economy ,as well as your useage and driving style of course.

In addition local stop start journeys will possibly not allow full regeneration causing genuine limp mode conditions to be initiated.

On the otherhand if you do use the car for longer running and motorway non urban use you can well expect to get 70+mpg under the right conditions. Possibly the DPF may will last longer, who knows.

[Doveaboy]

Thanks fella. I don't mind having the dpf, I don't even mind having to get the dpf juice refilled every 37k, what I object to is having to shell out a grand to replace the thing. Obviously the problem has been fixed in later cars where there's a dpf but it doesn't routinely have to be changed. As for the mpg, the problem is the short ratios in the 5 gear box, makes for lovely acceleration but not great economy. I drove a pal's 5 gear Seat Ibiza Ecomotion, quite zippy but really long legs so that at 70mph you're only getting 1900 revs rather than the 2400 or so in my car.

[7050man]

I'm not convinced that poor economy would be improved by raising 5th gear ie lowering revs on this car/engine combination.
This may well work for VAG engines as torque curve may well be suited to load on these cars at this speed, but for the V50 1.6d slightly higher revs will I think work better.

This is not just because of load/ torque matchine, but because with our cars, slightly higher revs improve economy due to better (less frequent) regeneration, particularly if you drive around at about 60mph or slower.

In addition to this, you may well need a heavier right foot as torque isn't perhaps at max for these speeds. It's a bit like the old days when a bigger engined car may well be more economical than a smaller engined one. I'm going back to the days of the Ford Cortina/ Sierra here.

Try driving along at about 11/1200rpm in 5th ( around 40mph I think). To maintain a given speed on a level(ish) road you will need more throttle, than at about 17/1800 in 4th. Check the instanteaneous readout on computer and see what I mean. You hardly have to touch the throttle to maintain velocity.

This is perhaps because car is not producing max torque at these engine revs. for given speed and you have to compensate with more fuel. In fact it's slightly loading the engine. Lowering the gear better matches load to the engine.