Forums » Grassroots Motorsports » Anything to know about used Volvo Rs? 1 2

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 10:51 a.m. ReverendDexter Dork

  WIth a youngin' in the oven, two Mustangs in the driveway just isn't making any sense. The Bronco is just the right size for the two us and two dogs (real dogs - 90 and 45 lbs), so we're looking for something with enough space for all five of us.

  The missus wants a wagon with an automatic tranny, and I'm thinking I can sneak some performance in there by finding a V70R (I am giving up the Cobra for this endeavor, hahaha).

  Anything I should know about these? Common issues, super-crazy expensive repairs, driving weirdnesses? We'll be voyaging into snow country at least annually to visit my parents, I know the R is AWD, but would an XC or an Outback be a better option due to the increased ground clearance?

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 11:19 a.m. jrw1621 Dork

  When you say Bronco do you mean full size like OJ's white Bronco?
  If yes, I bet you will think a V70 is too small. You may be able to fit the 90lb'er into the back area but the 45 lb'er will have to be in the back seat and you will then have no place for jr's stuff.
  I love my '95 Volvo 850 with FWD but the AWD system is commonly known to be a bit weak and expensive to repair. You can get a turbo and automatic without getting the AWD if you just stay with a V70. All XC's are AWD.

  Bite it. Get the mini van. They are made for exactly what you want. If you have a AWD need, look into an Chevy Astro/GMC Safari. Of course if you want even bigger the GM full size van is available in AWD, just less popular.
  The Astro was last offered in 2005 so you do not have to just choose from really old ones.

  Outbacks seem nice but are no bigger than the Volvo.

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 11:27 a.m. car39 Reader

  Last gen R's were a great sleeper, who figures a Volvo wagon with 300 hp and a manual? Most of them have been ridden hard and put away wet. The front facias will be scraped from curbs and driveways. They have a really poor turning circle because of the engine layout.

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 11:42 a.m. ReverendDexter Dork

  Thanks for that heads-up about the turning radius. The missus is addicted to how little space she needs to maneuver the Bronco (Full-size), so bad turning radius will be a deal-breaker for her.

  We have been bandying about the idea of a Mazda5, but I'm not convinced it'll have any more room than the Bronco, just more doors/accessibility to the back.

  Were it going to be my DD instead of her's, I'd just go whole-hog and get a diesel Excursion, but she doesn't want to drive something that big.

  Basically, I need the Tardis of cars.

  --There is no turd more polished than the Ford Mustang--

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 12:15 p.m. m4ff3w Dork

  Turbo Outback?

  My wife has a '99 Outback, we like it but it is waaay down on power compared to her previous Volvo turbos. She now wants another Turbo Brick.

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 12:18 p.m. Duke SuperDork

  ReverendDexter wrote: Basically, I need the Tardis of cars.

  Then the best alternative is a minivan as mentioned above. Nothing else is going to give you anything near as much useful space inside for such carlike volume outside.

  And contrary to popular belief owning a minivan does not come with a mandatory castration and a SOCCERMOM t-shirt.

  Junior Brown is my hero.

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 12:39 p.m. foxtrapper SuperDork

  R is not synonymous with AWD. The two are different. Generally speaking, Volvo awd is worth avoiding, particularly the early ones.

  If she thinks a Bronco turning radius is ok, she'll be thrilled with the Volvo's.

  99 on have a very poor throttle position sensor, expensive repair.
  

  R is overrated, especially for the price. The GSL is a turbo as well, and outruns an R for the first block or so. The GLS is very underrated by many.

  Volvo's are inherently plagued with gremlins. Various things just don't work or break for their own reasons. To someone from a Toyota background, it's horrible. To someone with a Bronco background, it's probably wonderful.

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 1:18 p.m. Shaun Reader

  There have been a couple recent threads here that cover the 1995-00 r's pretty well and I would avoid the AWDs of this era as well. I agree the 95-00 R's are not worth the premium over both the low and high pressure turbos available (sometimes much) cheaper. I have a 1995 t5r wagon (FWD) that have been very reliable and is holding up very very well at 160k. Toyota's have much lower maintenance requirements for sure, but Volvo is second only to Mercedes in miles driven before death. The 95 volvo 850 wagon holds just about the same amount of crap as a 1995 ford explorer and obviously leaves it for dead covering ground.

  • 1995 850 wagon Cargo capacity: rear seat up; to lower window (liters): 1,051, rear seat down (liters): 1,897, all seats in place (liters): 1,051 and all seats removed (liters): 1,897

  • -1995 ford explorer Cargo capacity: all seats in place (liters): 1,206

  I am going to get a 2004-2007 v70r when I retire the t5r. Different breast entirely than the 95-00 r's and they are dropping to 15k or so. 04-05 5 speed autos are nowhere as good as the 06-07 6 speed auto boxes. all the04-07 6 speed manuals are solid. The haldex AWD system is much better than the early volvo AWD cluge but is still a heavy FWD biases set up.. The turning radius as noted is abysmal, the shocks are really expensive electronically controlled units that like to quit, the clutches are short lived in the manuals, the angle gears break too often in all of them and are $$. some people have bought cars with expensive and persistent electrical gremlins the 5 bangers are solid and the rest of the car holds up very well. it is the last all Swedish hot rod wagon before ford took over. IPD offers parts to get a better handling car that makes 350 hp 350 ftlbs with bolts ons without creating reliability issues. I think they are the zenith of a do everything car, 5.5 second 0-60, low 13's in the 1/4, handle way better than an explorer, seat 5 adults and piles of luggage, tow a drift boat, roof racks will take 250 lbs, and the car returns 20 city and 25 hwy, the seats are superb, and the interior is non fussy and elegant. I convince myself every-time I think about it.

  http://www.v70r.com/forums/index.php?s=a7dd955585176efa2e7f3843664ecd64&

  http://www.ipdusa.com/Volvo-V70XC70-2001-2007/c-1-127/

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 2:05 p.m. ReverendDexter Dork

  foxtrapper wrote: If she thinks a Bronco turning radius is ok, she'll be thrilled with the Volvo's.

  foxtrapper wrote: Various things just don't work or break for their own reasons. To someone from a Toyota background, it's horrible. To someone with a Bronco background, it's probably wonderful.

  Wow... have you every actually driven a full-size Bronco, or is this general anti-Ford FUD? The turning radius on that thing trumps most cars I've ever driven, the exception being my old AE86 after I manual-steering swapped it. Short wheelbase + lots of steering angle = small turning radius.

  Insofar as reliability is concerned, there's nothing TO break on those trucks. 5.0s are plenty stout, especially in stock truck trim (non-H.O.), and power goes through an E40D (C6 with overdrive, same tranny they put behind 7.3L diesels), then through a stick-shifted NP205 transfercase (no push-button BS) and into an 8.8" rear end and Dana 44 center-sectioned front axle with manual locking hubs. Okay, so the interior's not that great, but rattling plastic doesn't stop you from getting home.

  --There is no turd more polished than the Ford Mustang--

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 2:51 p.m. dmidknight New Reader

  Subaru Legacy GT wagon

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 3:23 p.m. Ian F Dork

  ReverendDexter wrote: Wow... have you every actually driven a full-size Bronco, or is this general anti-Ford FUD? The turning radius on that thing trumps most cars I've ever driven, the exception being my old AE86 after I manual-steering swapped it. Short wheelbase + lots of steering angle = small turning radius.

  I have driven a full-size Bronco and will agree: amazingly tight turning radius.

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 3:35 p.m. snipes Reader

  The Volvo would be a very nice car but as said above the LGT wagon is a better value (I did not say car).

  
• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 4:08 p.m. Shaun Reader

  snipes wrote: The Volvo would be a very nice car but as said above the LGT wagon is a better value (I did not say car).

  I love them, A GT wagon would be my second choice for the do it all fast ute. The turbo Forrester is a good choice as well. Both would very likely be much cheaper to run than the Volvo.

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 4:36 p.m. ReverendDexter Dork

  Yeah, a Legacy Wagon was one of our first thoughts, but I've always had a thing for the looks of the late-model volvo wagons.

  --There is no turd more polished than the Ford Mustang--

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 4:55 p.m. foxtrapper SuperDork

  ReverendDexter wrote: Wow... have you every actually driven a full-size Bronco, or is this general anti-Ford FUD?

  I've driven quite a number of Bronco's. If that's your idea of a tight turning circle, so be it.

  Insofar as reliability is concerned, there's nothing TO break on those trucks.

  I disagree. Based on experience, those things break remarkably well.

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 5:07 p.m. ReverendDexter Dork

  foxtrapper wrote: I've driven quite a number of Bronco's. If that's your idea of a tight turning circle, so be it.

  For the sake of argument, what vehicles do you consider as having decent turning radii?

  --There is no turd more polished than the Ford Mustang--

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 5:32 p.m. Lugnut Reader

  Back in 2002, I did something similar. I swapped my '98 Cobra for an '02 WRX wagon. The WRX, even with an automatic, will be faster by far than a V70R. That being said, that WRX left my fleet many years ago, and I currently have an 850 that I have an R 16T turbo for.

  Bill Stickers is innocent!

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 5:36 p.m. Shaun Reader

  ReverendDexter wrote: Yeah, a Legacy Wagon was one of our first thoughts, but I've always had a thing for the looks of the late-model volvo wagons.

  I like Subarus allot and very happily ran a NA imprezza for a few years. If you sit in a 2004-2007 v70r that has the interior color you prefer it becomes very hard to imagine life with the subie. That is what it came down to for me, I am big at 6"4" 220 and the ute in our little fleet makes the big road trips. I can sit in my 850 for 10-12 hours and still feel decent, which is consistent with Volvo's philosophy: The make great seats for touring and the V70R has lovely big fat highly adjustable thrones that offer very comfortable seating positions. That and the Volvo's are nearly the same price as turbo subies of the same vintage since their depreciation is so awful. I don't care about resale becuase I smoke cars down to the butt. Anyway, they are worth a look IMO, and if you really consider one check out v70r .com for the problem areas and tips on what to look for. Sweedespeed.com is good too.

  the 2004 and 5 with the 5 speed autos are torque limited in 1 and 2nd gear, so they really are lacking in 0-60 and 1/4 mile performance bench marks. all the 6 speeds manual or auto turn in 5.5 0-60 times and high 13's or so 1/4 mile times. I don't think the 2002 wrx is that quick. later wrx's and sti's are certainly as fast and faster. fairly apples and oranges IMO. the WRX is a much rawer and better handling car, and no where near as comfortable or spacious as the volvo.

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 5:38 p.m. 93celicaGT2 SuperDork

  All i really know is that my buddy had a Volvo Wagon, an R of some kind of another, and with some simple cheap mods, it would smoke a tire all the way up to 80mph with the nannies fired.

  Hilarious.

  I want one, but probably for the exact opposite reasons you may.

  1992 Celica GT (FSP), 1993 Ford Escort GT (HS), 1990 Mazda MX6 GT Turbo (13.27@118mph)

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 6:01 p.m. Vigo Reader

  The WRX, even with an automatic, will be faster by far than a V70R

  uh......

  Try again?

  For the record, i looked closesly into buying a late-model V70R back when i could afford one. I still think the styling is unmatched in modern wagons, but for financial reasons i am buying a much cheaper used magnum.. still a wagon!

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 6:01 p.m. Junkyard_Dog HalfDork

  93celicaGT2 wrote: with some simple cheap mods, it would smoke a tire all the way up to 80mph with the nannies fired. Hilarious

  Good enough reason to post this video I found on turbobricks

  I love going to the Pull-a-Part because the dollar admission is cheaper than most car shows and you almost always see cooler cars.

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 6:03 p.m. Vigo Reader

  ^ you forgot the video!

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 6:04 p.m. Shaun Reader

  In reply to 93celicaGT2:

  That wpould be the 95-97 FWD versions. I have one with "some simple cheap mods" and the stupid amounts of torque completely overwhelm the contact patches for sure. I can light both wheels up into third gear, and It is good fun!

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 6:12 p.m. 93celicaGT2 SuperDork

  Junkyard_Dog wrote:

  93celicaGT2 wrote: with some simple cheap mods, it would smoke a tire all the way up to 80mph with the nannies fired. Hilarious

  Good enough reason to post this video I found on turbobricks

  The outside videos of that car are stupendous!

  1992 Celica GT (FSP), 1993 Ford Escort GT (HS), 1990 Mazda MX6 GT Turbo (13.27@118mph)

• 

  Jan. 26, 2010 7:02 p.m. foxtrapper SuperDork

  For the sake of argument, what vehicles *do* you consider as having decent turning radii?

  Well, the Bond Minicar is pretty good.

1 2  

You'll need to log in to post.