Are C70 convertibles any good?

[volvomania]

I have had my C70 now for well over a decade and it is still a fun car to drive.
Points of attention however:
-The AC: if it leaks it is fixable but if the compressor has crashed in the passé you can forget getting it fixed.
-The heater matrix under the dash: it is worth inspecting as these will last a decade max. Check for coolant loss and wet footwells. Changing them is pretty straight forward but change the hoses at the same time.
-if you have an SC-901 radio (dolby set-up): make sure that all, incl the 3-cd player works properly. Expensive to have it fixed though some youtube videos are around for the adventurous ones.
-engines: nearly faultless but keep an eye out for oil consumption and oil leaks. Consumption may be caused by more than just leaky valve seals.
-foldable roof: see the earlier comments
-parts that are not interchangeable with the S70 and V70 are nearly twice as expensive as those for the S and V. Windscreen is such an example.
-The upholstery is no longer available from Volvo

[volvomania]

Originally Posted by LEBLAKEY

I have a 2001 C70. I've had to replace the turbo and the ETS module - expensive - close on 4000€ for the bits and work. Especially as only Volvo main dealerships able to do the work here in France.
Now the rear window has drooped out of the softop. Volvo say I have to have a whole new roof (3000€) which seems ridiculous.
Doea anyone have any advice about an adhesive which might work?

Why don't you go to a softop specialist.
I remember the glass being secured with a zipper so that may just have split.

[christheancient]

Originally Posted by LEBLAKEY

I have a 2001 C70. I've had to replace the turbo and the ETS module - expensive - close on 4000€ for the bits and work. Especially as only Volvo main dealerships able to do the work here in France.
Now the rear window has drooped out of the softop. Volvo say I have to have a whole new roof (3000€) which seems ridiculous.
Doea anyone have any advice about an adhesive which might work?

Rather unfortunately, the rear window is heat-bonded in place and can be a long process.

And, equally and unfortunately, a new roof is very costly. When I first got mine and was getting my indy to give it a 'once over', just out of interest, I asked how much a new roof would be. Even then it was c£1600+vat!

If it is anything like in this country, there could be places that could re-bond a rear window; but even fewer of them would do it to Volvo standards and 'heat bond' it under the quite heavy pressure that's need.

I suggest you do a search to find if there is anywhere near to you that can do it - and then contact them to ensure that it is actually heat bonded into place.

[Bigfella666]

Lakey

I do not own a C70 and have never tried to re-glue the rear screen but I would try Protocolle, which I have only ever been able to obtain from a cobblers in Ilford. I did assist Zig70 some months ago by sending him a bottle for a tenner. Happy to help with increased postal charge of course if you are interested.

I do not know if Zig has used any of his but it is super stuff for sticking non porous surfaces, has many uses - it is so good that Kris the cobbler will repair free of charge any soles which come apart using this adhesive .

He is a bloody nice nice bloke as well !

[csvensson]

I recently got a 2006 c70 T5. Not the soft top. The amazing piece of engineering that is the hard top version.
Love it to bits. Looks great and drives very nicely.
I cannot imagine ever buying a car without infinite head room ever again.
The back window fell out of my son's soft top and he managed to find a new one somewhere and fitted it back in. Took a while but worth the effort for the saving

[john.wigley]

When we fancied a soft-top as a retirement plaything, we looked for a C70 but were unable to find one that we liked in our price range. So we settled for a Saab 9 - 3, which were more plentiful and generally cheaper year for year.

'The Slug of Doom' (post #8 above) is right in saying that they are not as well built as Volvos (We also have a V70, in addition to a Saab 9000) but we were prepared to compromise on that given that this is a 'third' car.

The hood is a problem area on the 9 - 3 as well. It is hydraulic and relies for it's operation on five rams which cost £400 a piece new. Reconditioned units are available for half that, but it pays to replace them all as if one is leaking the others will not be far behind. At present, we are getting by by topping up the hydraulic reservoir every few weeks, but know that is a short term fix.

As always, you pay your money and take your choice!

Regards, John.

[biggbn]

I owned a 2.0lpt manual c70 2002 model, a wonderful car. Smooth, incredibly comfortable and look gorgeous. Mine was an aqua blue metallic colour with two tone leather, grey and blue and aluminium dash inserts not wood. It was not what I needed at the time so it was sold on, but I am actively looking at replacing my current two cars with a decent mk1 c70 vert, in fact, I have , I think, found one. I do many motorway miles and the wafty aspect of the c70 particularly with the big engine really appeals. T5 pretty similar to the lpt for fuel consumption too. The lpt was neither quick nor frugal so I am going for a t5 this time. My present cars both average over 40-45mpg so my wallet will take a hit, but I think I spend so much time in my car, it is an investment in sanity!

I am a lifelong Saab and Volvo enthusiast, yes, you can support both 'sides', and I would agree, c70 much better built than the Saab rivals and a nicer drive, that said, I am tempted by a 2.8 aero v6 9-3 convertible. Buy a good c70 now, they are getting hard to find and is doubt they will get any cheaper. I am a bit frightened by the roofs but hey, if you find a good one, you have a champagne car for Coca Cola money!!

[ITSv40]

Originally Posted by biggbn

I owned a 2.0lpt manual c70 2002 model, a wonderful car. Smooth, incredibly comfortable and look gorgeous. Mine was an aqua blue metallic colour with two tone leather, grey and blue and aluminium dash inserts not wood. It was not what I needed at the time so it was sold on, but I am actively looking at replacing my current two cars with a decent mk1 c70 vert, in fact, I have , I think, found one. I do many motorway miles and the wafty aspect of the c70 particularly with the big engine really appeals. T5 pretty similar to the lpt for fuel consumption too. The lpt was neither quick nor frugal so I am going for a t5 this time. My present cars both average over 40-45mpg so my wallet will take a hit, but I think I spend so much time in my car, it is an investment in sanity!

I am a lifelong Saab and Volvo enthusiast, yes, you can support both 'sides', and I would agree, c70 much better built than the Saab rivals and a nicer drive, that said, I am tempted by a 2.8 aero v6 9-3 convertible. Buy a good c70 now, they are getting hard to find and is doubt they will get any cheaper. I am a bit frightened by the roofs but hey, if you find a good one, you have a champagne car for Coca Cola money!!

Love that and so true. Generally underrated and reflected in the price.

[ITSv40]

This forum deals with the original convertibles. The later '05 onwards cars are a completely different animal based on a Ford focus chassis.

[dme123]

OP are you looking at the soft top C70 or the 2006 onwards hard top? I've got experience of both.

The original one is very, very old fashioned now. It's pretty floppy, but has a great deal of charm. They are all thirsty (23mpg ish from our manual T5), but the engines are wonderful. For all the harking on about the stone axe reliability of this era of Volvo they are all getting old now, and reliability is absolutely not going to be close to that of a 3 year old car. They are well designed and very high quality though, so compared to pretty much any other 15 year old car they are excellent. In dark colours, and particularly the dark metallic blue with the matching roof, they still look great. They look very dated in some of the other colours though, if you care about that.

The hard top car feels at least two generations ahead of the soft top to drive. It's far more rigid, far more efficient even as a T5, ride much better, handles far better, it's quieter, has better visibility, a much better stereo if you get the Dynaudio, and is less likely to suffer age related maladies. Mine is a 2008 so is nearly a decade old now, and has been very reliable, and cheap to maintain and run.

For a cheap car to have some top down fun in the Mk1 is a bargain. I adore driving our T5 and with a manual gearbox the sheer flexibility and grunt of the engine is a joy. Ours has the lowered sports suspension and the dealer option sports exhaust so makes a hilarious noise too.

If you're going to use it as a daily and cover big mileage the Mk2 is a much better choice though. Mine is a D5, and while the engine is coarse and nowhere near as enjoyable as a T5 I average 43mpg and can get 50mpg+ on a run. This matters when you do 25-30k a year. It's also a brilliant engine for a diesel.

For what it's worth, having looked at the service manuals for the soft top and the hard top I would be stunned if the hard top doesn't prove to be far more reliable than the soft top mechanism in the long run. Despite the complexity of the kinematics of the hard top the actual operating equipment is far simpler than the soft top. They both appear to be more reliable than most other makes in that regard though, but even with the first cars being 11 years old now you rarely hear of C70 hard top problems or see one for sale with a dead roof.