How important are age, mileage, service history when buying?

Hi all,

I'm new here (though not entirely new to Volvo's). I would be interested to hear opinions about the importance of age, milage and service history for buying.

I want an 850 estate as cheaply as possible but without compromising on the things that will enable it to last another 5 to 10 reliable years.

I know they last well and some can do very high milage. Is it a safe enough bet to consider a 93-94 with over 150 000 miles or would I be wiser to pay nearly twice the amount for a late 96 with low milage and one careful owner? Could the low miler be more prone to problems due to the type of miles (e.g not warmed up throughly)?

I'm currently leaning towards the 2.5 20v engine as I think it might go the distance better than a Turbo (Don't really need a T5 since I have a Mini Cooper S for fun). I just need a comfortable, pratical, dynamic second car, that can deal with the increasing size of the family (3rd Child on the way - 4th is definately not in plan). I just can't decide whether it is worth paying out the extra if an older high miler will keep going just as well.

Any experiences or opinions would help

Matt (soon to be an 850 owner).

[cootuk]

It all depends what your budget is and what spec you want.

15" alloys can be picked up for £100 so this shouldnt be a concern, but do you want air con or other things that can't really be economically retrofitted? Make sure the toys all work..air con is expensive to fix.
ABS ecus are a few hundred to recon.

History really has to be there....850s do need servicing properly or things gunge up and cause oil seals to fail etc. I prefer a car that has all the receipts, and a FSH either from Volvo or a good independant.
I don't like servicing from back-street garages. Just changing oil/filter/plugs isn't a service.

I would be happy buying an 850 with approx low 100k on the clock, and would expect to run it to around 200k+ easily with appropriate servicing. Make sure the cambelt has been done....

Around 150k and you know it needs a new cambelt and should run till another cambelt is needed...then decide if it's economical to keep it running.

[imac]

The only difference between the logetivity of the T5 and 2.5 20v is the turbo life! Most turbos, provided they've been treated alright, will last to around 150k. They'll cost about £600-800 to replace (re-con). Find one that has a recent turbo and you'll be laughing!

ABS Ecu's go and is a common problem, don't fork out a few hundred pounds, get it re-soldred for a couple of hours labour. (Find someone/a mate with good soldering skills!)

If you're going to keep it 10 years or so, I wouldn't worry about having to sell it on, so get one with the spec you want. Most have air con or climate, but then again most that have them don't work! The A/C is a well established weakness of the 850 and can be costly to repair if it needs a lot of work done.

Cruise control,CD player, Leather & Electrics are on a lot, I'd try and go for the highest spec I could (CD) for comfort, although the more toys it has the more to go wrong!

I'd say an M/N reg T5 estate, with a good colour around 130k should set you back around £3000-£4000. A 2.5 would be £2000-£3000.

Get it checked over by someone who knows the 850's well, a lemon will cost you thousands but a good one will serve you very well :D

Age isn't that important, mileage isn't all that important provided it's had its regular oil changes, new turbo, cambelt etc. Service history is only generally indicitive of how well the car has been looked after and doesn't stand for all that much. FSH isn't essential, but a well looked after car is.

Oh, and I would reconsider the T5. It'll keep up with your Cooper S (In a straight line), provided you haven't tweaked the S! ;)


D.C.

[bobcat]

dont get a 93 or 94! 95 was the best year to go with.

mileage isnt a problem, just make sure its had all the common jobs done and has been looked after.

[imac]

Whats wrong with 94? :o

Provided it's the later style headlamp shape and has the newer style switchgear it's fine :D

thought about getting a TDI? they're a fair bit quicker than the 2.0 10v (not sure about 20v), and actually vaugely economical (unlike the petrol models it seems)..

[bobcat]

>Whats wrong with 94? :o
>
>Provided it's the later style headlamp shape and has the newer
>style switchgear it's fine :D

I never think its a good idea to get the first of something (cars anyway ;-) ) and from what ive read the 95's are a good year. plus you get the newer rear lights.

the 93 auto's are know for problems with the box, so stay away.

[liuleichan]

>thought about getting a TDI? they're a fair bit quicker than
>the 2.0 10v (not sure about 20v), and actually vaugely
>economical (unlike the petrol models it seems)..

Are there many that would choose the 2.0 engines though (in either guise)? They were just tax break models, really.

is the tax any different?

insurance/petrol would be cheaper in a 2.0 - there do seem to be a lot of them for sale.

[deanrosc]

>
>the 93 auto's are know for problems with the box, so stay
>away.

you got me worried now. what problems? ran mine for almost 60k and not had a problem. you can buy the newer rear lights (as i did) for about £40 and they fit straight on. i quite prefer the older headlamps on my car. its just that little bit different than 98% of 850s out there.
>never think its a good idea to get the first of something (cars anyway )

except the ford gt40 though.:-)