High Miles ex police xc70 - bad idea?

[Shortos]

As a police officer with 22 years in, I would never buy an ex police car based on my knowledge of my constabulary only. They are generally serviced quite well but sometimes with reconditioned parts as the maintenance is contracted out to companies who are looking to make as much profit and charge the police as much as possible. Always driven hard from cold and bumped up and down kerbs, speed bumps etc. Plus I would want a replacement interior as god only knows who and what has been transported in them, and it is very rare that they are cleaned professionally

[Christerart]

Originally Posted by Kev0607

I couldn’t really add more than what others have said. However, I will add fuel economy to the mix here. The newer engines are no way near as economical as the euro 3 D5’s & there’s a DPF to consider (DPF’s don’t like short journeys). A 2011 has no swirl flaps, so that’s a bonus. A euro 4 (2006-2009) does.

I have a 2005 XC70 Auto D5 euro3 - looks like new inside and out. Bought it two and a half years ago with 189K for silly money. Put four Michelin CrossClimate+ on it, changed the transmission fluid and oil changes, did complete cam belt and all that. It's been faultless, only done 14K miles due to Covid and regularly gets 55+ mpg over the road.

About 14 months ago I bought a 2008 XC70 Euro4 Lux Auto Polestar with 158K. It's a very different car - much heavier, quieter, very different engine sound. It's had the same done to it as the 2005 except this time I put Michelin CrossClimate2 on it and that transformed the car - it had Falken all around. The car feels much more planted and nicer to drive but I normally only get around 40mpg (goes like heck though - Polestar turns it into a very different car from the 163 Euro3).

[Kev0607]

Originally Posted by Christerart

I have a 2005 XC70 Auto D5 euro3 - looks like new inside and out. Bought it two and a half years ago with 189K for silly money. Put four Michelin CrossClimate+ on it, changed the transmission fluid and oil changes, did complete cam belt and all that. It's been faultless, only done 14K miles due to Covid and regularly gets 55+ mpg over the road.

About 14 months ago I bought a 2008 XC70 Euro4 Lux Auto Polestar with 158K. It's a very different car - much heavier, quieter, very different engine sound. It's had the same done to it as the 2005 except this time I put Michelin CrossClimate2 on it and that transformed the car - it had Falken all around. The car feels much more planted and nicer to drive but I normally only get around 40mpg (goes like heck though - Polestar turns it into a very different car from the 163 Euro3).

That’s a downside to the euro 4’s - The fuel economy isn’t as good as the euro 3’s, plus there’s swirl flaps & DPF’s on euro 4’s.

[Familyman 90]

People say this, but Ive owned E3, E4 and E5 simultaneously - and most importantly owned each from new and can guarantee they were treated and maintained identically - and found that not to be the case. Its difficult to see how and engine with greater volumetric efficiency can be less economical if driven equally.

Swirl flaps are a different matter. They can indeed cause issues, but I have dodged that bullet with all of mine.

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by Familyman 90

People say this, but Ive owned E3, E4 and E5 simultaneously - and most importantly owned each from new and can guarantee they were treated and maintained identically - and found that not to be the case. Its difficult to see how and engine with greater volumetric efficiency can be less economical if driven equally.

Swirl flaps are a different matter. They can indeed cause issues, but I have dodged that bullet with all of mine.

I've owned E3 and E4 and then E4, E5 and E6 simultaneously and found the E3 to be the more economical and refined. I think it's fair to say that if you ask any HGV truck operator they will also say the same models are slightly less economical with the higher emissions standards.

There is no doubt in my mind that the most economical D5 I've owned was a 2002 V70 D5 manual which was my dads ex-company car and that could do over 50 mpg on a gentle country run (based on brim to brim fills not the computer). My 2017MY XC60 D4 VEA 2WD would manage 45-46 max in the same driving. The XC60 will have worse aero dynamics but was on factory Conti Eco Contact tyres, the V70 was on Vredestein winters.

My view is the difference is down to a leaner burn of the lower emissions cars which is slightly "whiter" than then ideal fuel/air ratio for maximum fuel to power delivery, but that's just a guess.

Another issue which clouds it slightly is the E4 cars have the better TF80 6 speed box which utilises more torque converter lock-up and hence is more efficient. If that box had been fitted to the E3 it would have stepped that engine on even more in terms of economy.

[FreshAir]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

My view is the difference is down to a leaner burn of the lower emissions cars which is slightly "whiter" than then ideal fuel/air ratio for maximum fuel to power delivery, but that's just a guess.

Unless diesel technology has changed that much, then the basics of diesel fuel economy comes from its ability run at very lean mixtures. That is very high air to fuel ratio.

The higher fuel pressures since I studied this stuff improves economy by smaller droplet sizes, plus the ability to more accurately control the injection process.

The fundamentals of diesel economy still stand though, that is when running at very high air to fuel ratios they are very economical, if you drive very hard in a diesel you can get the economy down to petrol spark ignition levels (I managed 26mpg in a 1.6 diesel once on clear roads, whereas 55mpg was normal driving economy...).

Petrol spark ignition engines are generally constrained by the requirements of the catalytic converter to have an air to fuel ratio of around 14.7 to 1, so are actually way less economical then they would be if lean burn technologies had been allowed, but the catalytic converter producers were very wealthy and effective lobbyists back in the day. This is not as tightly constrained as it was but again generally it is the case, so it is not as easy to get possible to get as good economy or efficiency from petrol spark ignition engines.

[Familyman 90]

Well, I can only speak as I find. I keep a spreadsheet - although I stopped doing so on the 163 when that got passed on to my daughter - and have done so for all my cars since the 90's (I should get a hobby!).

My records indicate the 185 Polestar and 200 consistently gave better economy, considerably so on long motorway journeys where they would haul well into the 40's, 43-44 without fail. The 163 struggled to touch 40 under any circumstances. In mixed motoring the difference is less, but still notable.

Also I recorded less of an efficiency drop in colder weather for the E4 and 5 cars.

Emcon measures will make a difference, but the improvements in volumeteic efficiency are vast and would need to be stuffed up with emcon measures California style to come close to negating such a major efficiency improvement.

I must respectfully disagree re refinement. Bore and stroke the same to within a MM, same number of moving parts within the block, mounted in the same manner to identical sheet metal structures. I can think of no rule of mass-physics that would make a difference there. Despite differences in sound deadening, and the 163 suffering it its own way with an older transmission, there is nothing in it as regards refinement attributable to the motor.

PS, sorry to steer off topic. In my defence its all good natured, interesting, and could be of interest depending on the year of ex Fed car one might be considering.

[Dibble]

Originally Posted by Turbodave

I think it also comes down to what you want from the cars.

Some people out there spend days machine polishing their XC70 and fitting 19" diamond cut alloys and fastidiously hoovering the dog before it gets in... and others don't and are really just after something big, solid and that can be used as a tool. Which camp you're in or lean towards will influence your opinions on various examples of XC70s for sale.

I veer towards the latter so an ex Police XC70 that had been washed with a yard broom, I probably wouldn't care that much as I'd be lobbing bikes in it, the kids would try and kill the interior and my wife would use it to move things... it's a tool first and foremost but if it's a bit of bling you seek, ex Police is absolutely not the route to go down!

MPG wise, not sure what the car in question has engine wise but mine, a pretty abused 185bhp manual currently shows 38mpg and that's mostly running a round town, some open road runs and the odd motorway trip but it'll edge up towards 45mpg indicated on a steady run. I've no idea how accurate that is, I don't use the fill, clock, fill method as my first name isn't Sheik.

I also think with ex Police, people bang on about how they were treated or maintained and that's perhaps relevant if it's just come off fleet but if it's had a few years in the hands of a civilian then a) it's still running so evidently it must be ok and b) their care (or lack of) is more relevant than what the Police did with it back in 2015. See also the roasters that nit pick over a MOT advisory from 14 years ago. That's not relevant today, the current condition is.

I'd absolutely avoid a 4C equipped car... the standard chassis cars just seem to be much more compliant and capable of dealing with the local roads but if it's all fairly fresh stuff, they can be hustled along reasonably well whereas the 4C just never felt that comfortable with what was being asked of it.

But, opinions etc etc

Washed with a yard broom? Our cars, just across the river from you Dave, were washed at the end of every shift and polished and equipment checked every weekend.

[Trafpol]

Originally Posted by Yosser

Thanks for all the info guys, it's appreciated. Good to know about the non swirl flap thing too, that's interesting.

My commute is 25 miles each way mainly on motorway, and my current v70 (euro 3) consistently gives me about 43/44 mpg on supermarket diesel. Not bad for an old bus!

I appreciate the awd will give less, but it's an easy run so I'd be hoping it's not too bad - and dpf friendly too.

Good points about spec Dave. We all love a gadget, but there's maybe something to say about keeping it simple. There's another xc70 locally at not a bad price, but it's got 4c and I'm not interested in going down that road. Again....

1 Owner 1000 careful drivers.. Hope its not one I've thrashed....yes to be fair they were maintained but were always a little bit worse on return.

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by Familyman 90

I must respectfully disagree re refinement. Bore and stroke the same to within a MM, same number of moving parts within the block, mounted in the same manner to identical sheet metal structures. I can think of no rule of mass-physics that would make a difference there. Despite differences in sound deadening, and the 163 suffering it its own way with an older transmission, there is nothing in it as regards refinement attributable to the motor.

I think the better refinement of the 163 (in my perception anyway) is possibly down to the burn characteristics of each cycle - I have it in my head (rather than know for a fact) that it's a slow more sustained burn on the earlier cars.

In the same context, I also think the block and head have been lightened on the later E4 cars to decrease warm up time (i.e. lower thermal capacity) and hence absorb less shock.