2010+ Volvo V70 1.6d, high mileage?

[DailyHack]

Been looking at these recently, amazing value for the money, you can pick up a 2010/11 plate for £2/3k full service, history 1 owner cars with around 120/130k on clock.

Now, I am looking at a motorway cruiser and load lugger (I'm a photographer, so it's should be good at this),my current car is a E91 2012 318d (125k) known since new, and very reluctant to move on, but my wife is in desperate need of a car and she wants it for family duties in the new year..

I have a very strict budget, and these look very tempting, this or a SAAB but I feel this is a better buy now than a SAAB.

So apart from the usual diesel issues (Turbo/DPF/Injectors etc) I know about, I have run a X2 N47's so they can't be as doom mongery as them, are they ok? Cambelts or chains, and intervals..?

True believer in buy on condition so 130k on motor if serviced correctly is good for me.

Before anyone says it, the 1.6d is slow, I'm not too interested in power, it's a car get up to 70 and stay there, and these are in my budget, my 318d isnt exactly a power house.

Any advice would be great guys

Edited by DailyHack on Saturday 7th December 19:54

[CoreyDog]

The 1.6D is notorious for DPF issues.

I have a 2.0D V50 and that's been a pain on the DPF but speaking to my Volvo garage, they barely see any 2.0s with DPF issues but they say they see numerous 1.6D for DPF.

The DPFs have a life of usually 70k (Dependent on driving style etc) so at that mileage you maybe looking at a second DPF change fairly soon.

Apart from that, they seem fairly solid. My 2.0 is faultless apart from an ongoing DPF issue.

Typical Volvo. Very comfortable and easy to drive if not alittle dull. Servicing costs are reasonable and generally very reliable.

[journeymanpro]

Dpf replacement is due at 72500 miles according to service schedule. Avoid the 1.6d at all costs. Also have notorious turbo issues

[DailyHack]

Are the DPFs any different to any other marques? BMW for example, never had any issues with DPFs here, but I do drive 25/30k a year in my cars - what sort of mileage's are you guys doing out of interest?

Turbos are part of parcel with most modern dervs in my opinion again my experience with BMW - but I put that down to long oil service intervals.

Are the 1.6d's cambelts by the way?

[CoreyDog]

DailyHack said:

Are the DPFs any different to any other marques? BMW for example, never had any issues with DPFs here, but I do drive 25/30k a year in my cars - what sort of mileage's are you guys doing out of interest?

Turbos are part of parcel with most modern dervs in my opinion again my experience with BMW - but I put that down to long oil service intervals.

Are the 1.6d's cambelts by the way?

87,500 miles if badged as a D2 or 150,000 (10 years) if badged as a 1.6D for belts. At the years you are looking at you are near the change over period so worth looking.

The DPFs work in pretty much the same way as other DPFs but believe you have the Eloys tank aswell, something my car doesn't which will require topping up occasionally.

Cambelt change on my 2.0 wasn't actually too bad price wise, came in at under £300 if I remember rightly. On the 2.0 they are 144,000 or 10 years.

[dmsims]

Much as I love a V70 I would avoid the 1.6D

[mercedeslimos]

I was in the market for one of these recently. 90% of them were 1.6s. Have fixed too many of them, the black death injector seals give me nightmares.

Ended up buying a Mondeo with a DW instead, seemed like a safer bet.

[DailyHack]

Cheers guys, all your advice is great - I shall have a think about all this, looking to be a lemon of an engine this 1.6d.

[DavidY]

I disagree with some of the above re the 1.6D engine, as long as its a late engine, maintained properly, and generally used for high mileage work, it will be fine.

I've owned my V50 D2 from new (July 2012), its currently on just over 208,000 miles, the list of non-service replacement parts I've had on the car is small, and totals:

2 x steering gaiter
2 x lower front arms
1 x DPF failure at 194K miles
1 x clutch master cyclinder linbkage pin from pedal (plastic mechanism, failed at 201K miles

The first battery lasted 7 years, belts changed at 150K, and its still on original clutch.

[dmsims]

Here we go again, apples and oranges!

The V70 (not the V50) weighs a few hundred kg more than a V50

Take an already low powered engine ~110bhp (yes I know about torque) that isn't that economical and put that in a much larger, heavier car (the V70 not the V50)

[DailyHack]

It's a tricky one, I have ran N47 engines for the past 10 years, with all the internet and forum histeria around the cam-chains, but maintained correctly, served me well, but asking the questions on here most would say AVOID AT ALL COSTS so apples and oranges completely.

Not sure a V70 with such a small engine is a wise choice after all, 2.0d minimum I suspect.

Think I may get my wife a leggy FSH 2012 mk6 Golf, maybe a better car and I keep my E91

[greathorwood]

Just to weigh in with some peripherally relevant personal experience - ran the PSA 1.6D in a Peugeot 5008 for a couple of years. Correctly maintained and mostly motorway runs under my ownership (from 50k onwards) but ate its turbo at 102000 miles. Sometime prior to that had a 58 plate V70 with the 136bhp 2.0D - lovely car and the engine was fine but tbh wouldn't have wanted anything less powerful in it.

[confused_buyer]

I smoked a V70 1.6D with about 185k on the clock for a couple of months last year. Was still going strong.

They perform OK unless heavily loaded but as others have said in the real world are not that much more economical than the 2.0.

They made the V70 with the 2.0 4-cylinder diesel up to about 2010 and they are quite a sweet spot engine - more relaxed than the 1.6 but a lot more economical than the 2.4 185 5-cylinder lump which really likes a drink.

[gashead1105]

confused_buyer said:

I smoked a V70 1.6D with about 185k on the clock for a couple of months last year. Was still going strong.

They perform OK unless heavily loaded but as others have said in the real world are not that much more economical than the 2.0.

They made the V70 with the 2.0 4-cylinder diesel up to about 2010 and they are quite a sweet spot engine - more relaxed than the 1.6 but a lot more economical than the 2.4 185 5-cylinder lump which really likes a drink.

My wife has the 2.4 175 in her 2010 V70, which we've run from 40k up to it's now 95k miles. It's been pretty bombproof to be honest, just requiring regular servicing basically. We had a DPF sensor go 4 years ago, and a pinhole leak in the rad, but those were the only unexpected costs. There's also a common fault with the front nearside door lock (they go weak) but we've lived with that for a couple of years now. Otherwise it's just been consumables, it doesn't half like chewing through front tyres. Set of new boots each year basically. Fuel is about 35MPG in mixed use, although 50MPG on the motorway is doable.

It's a pretty great car all in all, but we had a V60 loan car when Volvo messed up the gearbox oil change last year and that was a real step on.

[confused_buyer]

gashead1105 said:

My wife has the 2.4 175 in her 2010 V70, which we've run from 40k up to it's now 95k miles. It's been pretty bombproof to be honest, just requiring regular servicing basically. We had a DPF sensor go 4 years ago, and a pinhole leak in the rad, but those were the only unexpected costs. There's also a common fault with the front nearside door lock (they go weak) but we've lived with that for a couple of years now. Otherwise it's just been consumables, it doesn't half like chewing through front tyres. Set of new boots each year basically. Fuel is about 35MPG in mixed use, although 50MPG on the motorway is doable.

It's a pretty great car all in all, but we had a V60 loan car when Volvo messed up the gearbox oil change last year and that was a real step on.

The 2.4 175 is the slightly later engine which came in about 2010. The 175/205 version of the 2.4 is better on fuel and smoother than the 2.4 163/185 which served for the first 2 or 3 years and is pretty gruff, has a fair bit of turbo lag and uses more fuel than the later twin turbo 205 in my experience.

V60 feels a step up in modernity to drive I feel but doesn't offer quite the space. Stereo isn't as good either.

[dmsims]

All this oil burner nonsense: