thinking of buying a 2009 v70 2.0d r design but need info

[Tatsfield]

When the PSA engine was fitted in Peugeot and Citroen cars the cam belt replacement schedule was more complicated. PSA recognised two driving modes; short stop start journeys and long non stop journeys. Since the belt is at most stress when it has cooled from hot to cold and assumed the shape of the path over the pulleys and idlers and the car is started from standstill to running, the regime for short journeys would stress the belt far more than long continuous running. So the replacement schedule for short journey usage was 48K miles or 5 years, whichever came first and the schedule for long journey usage was set at 80K miles or 10 years. Later cars with longer service intervals saw this uncreased to 72K miles or 5 years and 100K miles or 10 years. It isn't surprising that owners and mechanics without resort to the scheduling specification bundled the different regimes together and trotted out figures which had some relevance to some part of the scheduling but was actually not representative of the true nature of the regime. PSA also recommended changing the water pump when the belt was changed regardless of its condition because the cost of the pump was insignificant compared to the cost of replacing it if it failed. PSA car owners are used to the mantra of "belt, tensioner, idlers and water pump" those who ignored the advice took their own risks.

Since this is the same engine, I would have expected Volvo to accept PSA wisdom and certainly not recommend running the4 belts longer that the intervals originally established. Changes in tensioners and idlers may have allowed longer intervals.

[Clan]

Originally Posted by Tatsfield

When the PSA engine was fitted in Peugeot and Citroen cars the cam belt replacement schedule was more complicated. PSA recognised two driving modes; short stop start journeys and long non stop journeys. Since the belt is at most stress when it has cooled from hot to cold and assumed the shape of the path over the pulleys and idlers and the car is started from standstill to running, the regime for short journeys would stress the belt far more than long continuous running. So the replacement schedule for short journey usage was 48K miles or 5 years, whichever came first and the schedule for long journey usage was set at 80K miles or 10 years. Later cars with longer service intervals saw this uncreased to 72K miles or 5 years and 100K miles or 10 years. It isn't surprising that owners and mechanics without resort to the scheduling specification bundled the different regimes together and trotted out figures which had some relevance to some part of the scheduling but was actually not representative of the true nature of the regime. PSA also recommended changing the water pump when the belt was changed regardless of its condition because the cost of the pump was insignificant compared to the cost of replacing it if it failed. PSA car owners are used to the mantra of "belt, tensioner, idlers and water pump" those who ignored the advice took their own risks.

Since this is the same engine, I would have expected Volvo to accept PSA wisdom and certainly not recommend running the4 belts longer that the intervals originally established. Changes in tensioners and idlers may have allowed longer intervals.

Volvo specification for the engine is as high as possible regarding belts and tensioners hence the 10 year / 150,000 mile change interval , they have never had any trouble with them since 2004 when they first started using the Ford sourced engines . Historicaly volvo have always improved the engine bought from another manufacturer , the renault 1400 in the 300 had better quality Mahle pistons which last forever and higher quality valves , The 850 TDI VW van engine ...they sorted out their cam belt problems .

ON the other hand , When Renault used the volvo 4 and 5 cylinder petrol engines to pass emission tests in the later 1990's they just bought the bare engines and fitted their own black gaskets which caused nothing but trouble .