Used Volvo V70's.....Why are they now selling for peanuts?

[sierraman]

Originally Posted by johnnyc

mondeo's dont keep the value you think mate, i just traded in my mondeo 2.5 v6 zetecs on an 02 with fsh and only 76k on the clock, car was a cracker but was too expensive to run and things starting to go wrong, i onl got 1800 for the trade in, the problem is people what top end prices for there car but want a new one for buttons

Hi
Thanks for your comments. I have been judging 2ltr mondeo's against my 140bhp v70. I have previously only owned 2.0 ltr ford sierra's/mondeo's and the bhp is not much different (yes i know that the volvo engine is a sweeter unit)

2.5 v6 mondeo's have always seen huge depreciation as they are are 2 or 3 insurance groups higher than other mondeo's & standard Volvo's. They are also heavier on fuel compared to 140/170bhp v70's but i do know they make up for it with the sportier ride and the purr of the engine etc.

Yes i agree that £1,800 trade in for a 02 car like yours is a joke!

[sierraman]

Originally Posted by GMad

Holy crap!!!!

My 99 V70 cost me £325 in April 2007.. Ok I accept that I had a bit of a deal but, £7500 to my mind is waaay over the top! Even two years earlier, for a car that's a year younger..

Wow...can i get you to buy all of my future cars please?

What was the catch....how many thousands have you spent on parts?

Should i slash my wrists now!

[GMad]

Originally Posted by sierraman

Wow...can i get you to buy all of my future cars please?

What was the catch....how many thousands have you spent on parts?

Should i slash my wrists now!

The only thing that was wrong with it was a buggered CV joint! I bought a complete new driveshaft and fitted it myself, a whisker over £100 if memory serves me correctly. Apart from every day service items, the only other repair I've needed to carry out, was a front brake caliper overhaul (about £15).

[dazdidge]

I thought I was doing well at £460 for a 99 V70 2.5 XT with under 100k on the clock. My first Volvo was an s40. At the time I had a civic esi auto, but you couldn't get a pram in the boot and my wife was up the duff so to speak. We searched for cars and eventually found the s40 for a half decent price and I managed to talk the other half into it using the safe as houses excuse. She loved it!!! After she managed to write it off we bought a pug 307 sw hdi (seven seater thing) which she also loves. But then a couple months back a lady I knew was selling a v70 she got at an auction, I knew she was kinda desperate to get rid of it and managed to haggle down quite a bit. Anyway, after getting it on the road my wife had a shot (after calling me an old fart) and now wants included on the insurance full time. I get 28mpg with a trailer on, can overtake whenever I feel the need, have shed loads of room in the boot and feel safe with the kids in the car. Moral of the story is don't worry too much about how much money it has lost in value, enjoy the car, keep it well serviced and looked after, and it will last for many thousands of miles more than a ford,as well as being more comfy, safe and stylish.

cheers
daz

[Lmason]

Originally Posted by sierraman

Hi
Many thanks for your input. What heading do you thing this post should be under?

I agree with almost everthing you said except the long lasting volvo bit. I would expect a volvo to be long lasting in every department (not just bodywork) However the mechanicals on V70's appear to be riddled with faults, Poor quality/not properly tested / experimental parts and silly prices. Externally Volvo's look good quality and the interiors are generally excellent. However if my car is anthing to go by (and judging others on here too) there won't be many around in years to come due to reliability issues.

Perhaps it is just me but i had always looked at volvo as a prestige high quality brand. You paid more for the quality and as such this was always reflected in their re-sale values. However this is no longer the case. Perhaps it is due to the new car situation but i can't help thinging that volvo has lost it's way, are riddled with inherent faults and the word is out!

regarding the build quality. i had a 1999 s80 t6 with the blue volvo badge on the front.
my opinion is, prior to 1998 ( the cars with the black and silver volvo badge on the front grille) are by far better and more reliable.
i think alot of cars from 1998/1999 era design quality deteriorated, this was the approximate date when electronic throttle control replaced the basic less to go wrong cable control, not just on volvos but on alot of other makes.
i rember the volvos first built with electronic throttle control had design problems and there was a recall by volvo on them to have them rectified.
saying this, i was speaking to the autowindscreen fitter last week who told me even the latest ford transits have alot of unreliable issues with the throttle control module.
so, when im buying a volvo, id rather stick to the 1998 or previous models, as they are easier for me to repair myself, without having to go to garages to have eletronics fixed.
not sure why car manufacturers are over engineering their cars now, is it so we have to take them to the dealers to pay high prices to have them checked out on specialist expensive equipment? or is it the "green issue" whatever the reason, these type of "modern designs" are more expensive for the consumer.

[Chris Parish]

Our motoring is on a strict budget, although we both want decent cars. That is why we have and old S60 and an old S80. They are a real bargain when they are a few years old.

[Lmason]

yep, i know where youre coming from. i cant get hp, therefore cant get a new car.
but when you work it out, these people who pay hp on a new car and get good mpg (but no or little power) what they save on mpg, they pay on hp interest, so at the year ending, my so called gas guzzling old banger does not cost me any more than a newish econimical car i would have to pay hp for., and the bonus of having my s70 (or v70, 850 etc these are easier and less complicated for me to do my own repairs) is, its comfy and ive got power to overtake the sunday drivers.
so that does me.

[rippedoffagain]

I think big cars always depreciate faster than smaller ones. There are two main reasons I reckon:

1) Small cars have become the fashion - see how many chavs own Clios and Corsas vs big Volvos.
2) People pass their driving test in small cars, so stick with them until circumstances force them to look for something bigger

[andy_d]

as a lot have said there appears to be a "mix" of things driving this
the media hype (or brainwashing?) that smaller engines are cleaner/better
the insurance costs for larger engines
the gov taxes being higher for us who prefer older cars, both the road tax and the increases in fuel taxes,
again the media with there "green is better" campain
car "fashion" being at the moment slanted towards the smaller "more ecconomical car"
the current "scrappage" deal (ahem)

(said scrappage deal has removed a lot of the sub 2k decent cars from the market, causing a strange set of market forces, the cheap end , sub £500ish, seem to have migrated up to the £700/£900 level , due to the missing motors, the slightly higher £1.5k area ones dropped an appreciable ammount, dragging down the £2k/£3k level with them. said thoughts areteh condensed version of a very recent conversation with a couple of friends who are 2nd hand car dealers. )

they appear to not know or care that a 1.1l engine will do 70mph and be working considerably harder than a 2.5l/large engine and accelerate the wear + tear on said 1.1/1.2l engine. they appear to not understand the concept of "buy a car that lasts (aka a volvo/few others).

its a bad time to be selling a large engined volvo, but if you have the ability to buy said larger engined larger volvo slightly better story.

[Childofthestone]

As many have already said the fashion for smaller more economical cars goes a long way towards explaining the modest resale value of your V70 , in addition the obvious fact that Volvo estates seem to live long life's may tend to depress prices as supply out stripes demand .

But at a deeper level am I alone in thinking Volvo's reputation for build quality may be exaggerated ? My well maintained 90k V70 creeks and groans like a old Transit van in a way the Nissan Primera I had before never would (I still love it though) and you don't have to spend very long on here before you start to realise that there is a hell of a lot that can go wrong with a 850/V70 - I'd never even heard of MAF sensors & ETM's before !

Does the sheer number of old 850's you still see on the roads prove that these cars are better engineered than your typical Ford/Vauxhall alternative or does it just mean Volvo owners are prepared to invest more in keeping their cars going ? To me there's a hard to define 'feel good' factor (King of the Road) feeling in driving a big Volvo that I feel may go a long way towards explaining their longevity .

As I'm sure you're already (painfully) well aware depreciation is by far the largest motoring expense for most drivers - an old V70 may cost you an extra £10 or £20 a week in fuel compared to a newer car but to put that in perspective that newer car could easily lose £1,500 or much more a year in depreciation alone - the maths are simple enough . If your car is not worth very much anymore your best course of action (if you can resist the dreaded 'new car itch') may be just to keep it until it dies , at least it hasn't got much further to fall in cash terms .

PS - The chap who bought a V70 for £325 3 years ago should really buy all our cars for us in future !