V70: General High mileage DRIVe V70

[someguysayshello]

Hi,

So I’m deliberating purchasing a 1.6 L DRIVe V70, it has 130,000 miles on the clock, which I know isn’t high in Volvo terms, but is on a 1.6 that’s pulling around a relatively large car.

I was wondering if anyone had any experience with this engine in the V70, is it up to the task, will it last long if well maintained?

- just for background, I’m looking at it because I need to replace my XC90, I like the XC, but it’s costing a small fortune to run.

Thanks,

Peter

[Billggski]

As I understand, the Ford 1.6 in the eDrive is the earlier 16valve engine. Which had problems with the oil sludging unless maintained meticulously. So check the dip stick and oil filler cap.
The later 8 valve cured the problem. As a motorway cruiser the torque developed is adequate, loads of space for kit, just don't expect to burn rubber!

[Tannaton]

As has been said no major concerns if maintained correctly. Whilst they are not inherently unreliable they are not on a par with the 2.0 or Volvo 5 cylinder engines.

If you do mostly town driving then they are surprisingly spritely but country runs, motorway etc they can struggle especially when loaded. Forget towing unless it’s rubbish to the tip. They will cruise on the motorway with ease all day long but if you need a bit of ooomph to get into a gap when joining off a slip - that’s when you will feel it.

Personally I think the 2.0 is a good balance.

[someguysayshello]

Hmm, sounds ok so. Mostly I’ll use it for dropping the kids off, and commuting into town, with the odd long distance motorway trip, there’s very little overtaking / need for serious power (our other car is a newer S-max with the same 1.6, but a lot less miles).

I’ll look for the maintenance, it appears to be a problem with that 1.6 in all ot’s Forms.

Thanks,

Peter

[wheelnut]

I had a 2012 my Drive V70 115 which I did 110k miles in over 3 years and it was fine. Developed a new lease of life at 90k miles when it became quicker and more economical.

[someguysayshello]

Originally Posted by wheelnut

I had a 2012 my Drive V70 115 which I did 110k miles in over 3 years and it was fine. Developed a new lease of life at 90k miles when it became quicker and more economical.

Should I ask what happened at 90k? Or was it just run in at that stage?

I’m goijng to go see it in the morning, i’ll See how it looks, I’m also going to look at a 2.0D r-design V70, which is older so doesn’t have Bluetooth and a few other nice to have items.

Hopefully one of the two are I’m good shape / make sense.

Thanks,

Peter

[someguysayshello]

So I took two V70’s for a drive today.

The 1.6 DrivE, was pretty tidy, it didn’t drive like a car with 130,000 on the clock, it felt pretty tight, and well kitted - SE Nav Lux, it was from 2011, but was a 2012 model Car, so had the updated interior, with leather, Nav, Bluetooth, xenon lights, the adaptive cruise control, lane change and part of the blind spot warning system - it turns out it was a Cat D write off a couple of years ago, the damage was to the passenger side, and when the fixed it they put on a standard mirror, that lacked the blind spot warning equipment.

The 2.0 R-design was a different story, it has 95,000 on the clock, and felt like it had done those miles, it has a towbar, it doesn’t have heated seats or Bluetooth, has aftermarket parking sensors, the battery was dead when I went to drive it. It had no visible accident history, though the sealant used in the rear tire well was a couple of different colours (anyone know if this is normal?). It’s a 2009 Car, so has the older interior.

Anyone any thoughts, should the Cat D 1.6 be avoided even if the car goes well? Is the 2.0 the one to go for (if it wasn’t for the crash history it’d be the 1.6 without question).

Thanks,

Peter

[Tatsfield]

Cat D cars should reflect their status in their price. Not because they are inferior but that you just have to accept that buyers confidence is dented in a car that has been written off after an accident. If you intend to run the car into the ground and be selling it only for peanuts, there is every reason to consider a Cat D. Often the "write off" is purely economic and provided the guys that bought the damaged car carried out approved repairs, you are getting a perfectly good car. Had it been several years younger when it had the damage, the insurers would have paid for the repairs and it would not have been written off because the repair would have cost less than the resale value. A couple of years down the line and the resale value has dropped and the cost is not economic although the repaired car would be perfect. You really need to go over the repaired area with a fine toothed comb to ensure that all the panels align and that it isn't crammed with filler. Crashed cars need to be subjected to chassis alignment tests to ensure that the car runs true. The other area of problem is whether the repaired panels are as corrosion proof as the rest of the car. The inappropriate wing mirror does worry but a cheaper spec mirror might have contributed towards the repairers being able to make the car good at a price that warranted them buying it in from the insurers. Now it's an older car you could buy in a second hand mirror from a breakers and return it to its original spec..

[Tannaton]

Cat D is where the car was deemed economic to repair but the insurers decided not to for other reasons. These “other reasons” can vary wildly but the most common is availability of parts - occasionally on older models the manufacturer is not able to supply certain parts and there can be a considerable wait whilst more are manufactured. This is more likely to affect interior and trim parts rather than mechanical. Hence the cost of providing you with a hire car for 12 weeks makes it too expensive and/or would result in a strained relationship.

Someone I know bought an absolutely mint Audi TT Convertible as a Cat D, the fabric roof had a hole burnt in it from a firework. Apparently Audi only supply new roofs as a complete assembly with frame etc. at a cost of circa £3k+ and they were out of stock. He got a pattern roof fitted for £600.

So it may be a bargain, but get it checked properly by the AA or similar and pay only 65% of market value max. The fact that it has the wrong mirror is not a good sign.

As chap above said it all depends on where you see the value in the car. If you are intending on keeping it a long time until it is worth say 20% of what you paid for it then a properly sorted Cat D might make good sense. If you intend on trading it in anytime soon to upgrade - I would forget it.

From the sounds of it you should look at a good few more cars to get a better feel for them.

[Sasha94]

I'd guess the cost of a new BLIS equipped mirror would be a big help in pushing it into write off territory. I'd not let a Cat marker bother me personally, price depending. As an aside, my DRIVe V50 now has 133k on the clock and also drives very well, my P3 XC70 had nearly 160k on the clock when sold and it drove well too and felt beautifully screwed together. I sometimes wish I'd have gone for another 70 over my 50 but the 50 suited my needs better; having had a 70 it was bigger than I needed and when I was buying the 50 I only had £5500 to spend and I couldn't get what I wanted in a 70 for that price at the time.

Good luck making a decision; I'd not have a Volvo (or anything) without heated seats though, just saying