D5 engines 163bhp unreliable ????

[Christerart]

15K miles in a year - done two transmission dumps with Lubeguard Red and the transmission is silky smooth. Now at 224K. Shell Helix Ultra fully synthetic every 5K miles.

Getting 54 mpg (more on long trips). Tons of power.

Engine starts instantly at 10 below without glow plug heat.

Love this engine..=*^)

[aland]

I disagree there is any reliability issues with the D5, especially the 163 version.
I've owned my v70 for 10 years, bought at 3 years old with 120k miles, now on 255k.
The only engine related large expense outside normal maintenance in that time was a DMF flywheel last year because it was starting to rattle. Did the clutch also while apart but it wasn't slipping.
All DMFs eventually fail, that's not a D5 issue.

I also have experience of the old Audi 5cyl engine in an S80 - and a failed cambelt killing it. I'd describe it as gruff, unrefined, noisy, underpowered and generally carp.

Between friends and my 185 D5 in another car we have 8 D5's, between them approaching 2 million miles - no reliability issues with any of them.

There have been odd small faults, obviously, like vacuum engine mounts causing turbo errors (which is really because of insufficient vacuum), but these are easy and cheap to fix, and not an issue with the engine itself.

[skyship007]

Originally Posted by aland

I disagree there is any reliability issues with the D5, especially the 163 version.
I've owned my v70 for 10 years, bought at 3 years old with 120k miles, now on 255k.
The only engine related large expense outside normal maintenance in that time was a DMF flywheel last year because it was starting to rattle. Did the clutch also while apart but it wasn't slipping.
All DMFs eventually fail, that's not a D5 issue.

I also have experience of the old Audi 5cyl engine in an S80 - and a failed cambelt killing it. I'd describe it as gruff, unrefined, noisy, underpowered and generally carp.

Between friends and my 185 D5 in another car we have 8 D5's, between them approaching 2 million miles - no reliability issues with any of them.

There have been odd small faults, obviously, like vacuum engine mounts causing turbo errors (which is really because of insufficient vacuum), but these are easy and cheap to fix, and not an issue with the engine itself.

Agree with all of your post, BUT not all DMF's fail before the engine wears out.

Alas very few drivers know how to drive for minimum engine and tranny wear and those that do often can't be bothered, including myself sometimes. I give my Twingo town car some real stick sometimes, mostly because it's a French job!

Min wear operation does not mean driving slowly, so is a bit different to max fuel economy operation. It often means learing how to use the clutch correctly and how to cold start and warm up a cold block.

Some real cheap DMF's do use springs that corrode and then fail before the block, but I doubt that Volvo would use such bad parts.

[Martin Cox]

In response to the comments by aland, I have a 2008 163BHP D5 V70 auto which was bought to replace a 1998 V70 Tdi Auto (Audi engine) after the cambelt failed. I've now repaired the damage caused by the cambelt failure and that car is back on the road again so I'm in a position to make some direct comparisons between the two.

I've lived with the Audi engine in the 1998 V70 for 15 years and have only 8 months experience with the D5. it's been completely trouble free so far but it's still far too early for me to make any sensible comments on reliability

I'd agree that the Audi unit is gruff and noisy and maybe a touch 'agricultural' but we certainly didn't find it underpowered.

in fact our impression of the D5 was of a sweet, smooth and refined but somewhat gutless and thirsty engine by comparison.

Obviously there are many other variables so any comparisons can only be subjective and I'm sure that some of the difference can be attributed to the differences in the automatic transmissions (My preference is for the older unit rather than the Geartronic used with the D5)

To sum up, to get from A to B in comfort I'd take the D5 V70 but if I wanted to enjoy the drive, given the sagging seat, tired suspension and dead aircon, it has to be the 1998 V70!

In my opinion they are both fine engines for their time and I'd find it difficult to choose which I prefer. Mind you, I don't much fancy trying to mend a D5; the D5252t (Audi) was hard enough!

[aland]

Originally Posted by Martin Cox

In response to the comments by aland, I have a 2008 163BHP D5 V70 auto which was bought to replace a 1998 V70 Tdi Auto (Audi engine) after the cambelt failed. I've now repaired the damage caused by the cambelt failure and that car is back on the road again so I'm in a position to make some direct comparisons between the two.

I've lived with the Audi engine in the 1998 V70 for 15 years and have only 8 months experience with the D5. it's been completely trouble free so far but it's still far too early for me to make any sensible comments on reliability

I'd agree that the Audi unit is gruff and noisy and maybe a touch 'agricultural' but we certainly didn't find it underpowered.

in fact our impression of the D5 was of a sweet, smooth and refined but somewhat gutless and thirsty engine by comparison.

Obviously there are many other variables so any comparisons can only be subjective and I'm sure that some of the difference can be attributed to the differences in the automatic transmissions (My preference is for the older unit rather than the Geartronic used with the D5)

To sum up, to get from A to B in comfort I'd take the D5 V70 but if I wanted to enjoy the drive, given the sagging seat, tired suspension and dead aircon, it has to be the 1998 V70!

In my opinion they are both fine engines for their time and I'd find it difficult to choose which I prefer. Mind you, I don't much fancy trying to mend a D5; the D5252t (Audi) was hard enough!

Interesting. My experience of the Audi engine was in an S80 with auto 'box, so probably the same as yours.
I've driven the D5 in both auto and manual form, my own cars are both manual. The auto saps some power certainly.
I'm surprised by your comments of gutless and thirsty - i'd suggest getting it checked for fault codes with VIDA - it's possible yours has a fault responsible for these issues. I get mid 40's MPG consistently, more if I use 'V-Power' or similar premium diesel.
I've found the worst MPG is from supermarket fuel - especially Tesco stuff!

[Martin Cox]

I've not tried the manual version of either car and I accept that the automatic transmissions are two completely different animals. I think I should have prefaced 'underpowered and gutless' by the the word 'Slightly'. I'm splitting hairs here. The D5 has a full Volvo service history from the local dealer and had the relevant service before just before we bought it. I've no reason to believe there's anything wrong with it. However, things do change so getting the codes read may be a wise move.

In fairness, the fuel economy is in line with that experienced by other forum members so I don't think there's an issue; It's just not as good as I could get with the older engined car. My wife usually drives the D5 and she has a heavier right foot than I do so this may have a little to do with it.

With regard to performance, the older car is quicker off the mark but I'm sure the difference is entirely due to the transmission. I suspect the Geartronic may 'think' too hard rather than simply getting on with it, like the older unit does.

Despite my comments I'm very happy with the D5 and if I hadn't been able to make a direct comparison, I doubt I'd have even thought much about it.

We'll be taking the D5 for it's first long journey, a trip to Austria and the Czech Republic so it will be interesting to see if I've revised my opinion when we return.

Martin

[Leyburn]

Other than the cambelt and the aux belt, the D5 engine seems to be robust.

Cambelt / aux belt no worse than many other engines, but it's a flawed concept. Cambelts originally designed for "safe" engines, if it breaks then just replace it, valves shouldn't hit pistons.

[MG68]

My 2003 V70 D5 163bhp geartronic is still on its original engine and is onto 627k miles. Just had its MOT also.

OK the gearbox was replaced, but that was at 400k miles.

Local Volvo Indy couldn't believe how well it drove.

So, no I wouldn't say they were unreliable...

[Ben Bhraggie]

My first S60 over 200K, brilliant engine, never failed,
My current XC70 183K, brilliant engine, one of the injectors causes a we miss when first start, still returns 40 mpg on a run.

[philcox]

Originally Posted by debcab06

If this is indeed nonsense, then why are there so many problems clearly evident on the forum? Page after page!..........Surely then, there must be some questions to be asked.

Totally agree.Damn unreliable they are.
I had to fill my washer bottle AGAIN today.
That's twice this year.