Ad from local listings:
"This is a S60 SE with silver exterior and black leather interior, with lots of extras, fully loaded. The car is like new and in perfect condition. All service records are available (all done in the Volvo dealership). It has an extended warranty until June 2009. 83,500 KMs.

This model has exceptional fuel economy, you get the performance from a 6 cylinder with the fuel consumption of a 4 cylinder. And of course, you get the Volvo quality and safety standards.

SE Package includes:
sport leather seats,
aluminum interior trim,
leather shift knob,
8-way power driver's seat with 3 position memory,
Audio Max AM/FM stereo with 4-disc in-dash CD player,
235/45R-17 inch tires,
Tethys alloy wheels,
front fog lights,
Dynamic Stability Control,
sunroof
metallic paint

Engine 2.4 litre inline five cylinder, DOHC, 20 valves, CVVT
Horsepower 168 @ 5900 rpm
Torque 170 @ 4500 rpm
Transmission 5-speed manual
Fuel consumption
City: 10.7 l/100 km (26 mpg)
Hwy: 7.0 l/100 km (40 mpg) "


What I like about this car:

-5 speed MANUAL!!!!
-no turbo-less for fuel costs, and repairs when leaks become common with age
-it's one of the few cars recommended by consumer reports.


What say you? anything I should look at? I love doing my own repairs, so is this the car I should be actually thinking about buying? The owner wants 16500CAD, but I offered 13 pending an inspection.

Thanks in advance

Nice car. Unless you always drive down hill and with the wind, you will never see 40mpg, 30mpg perhaps. This car uses "premium" fuel because of the 10:1 compression ratio, regular gasoline will not work.

BTW, turbos have evolved nicely and one can expect over 200K miles before replacement. With 8.5:1 compression ratio, turbos can actually use 89 octane and will only degrade (knock) with full boost. Plus, turbos give 200bhp.

But, a 5speed manual is just as much fun and quick enough to keep up with most cars. Plus the control is better when spirited driving warranted, verses an automatic with the low pressure turbo.

Klaus
--
Just driving a 1998 V70R :)

Thanks for the info, I knew the newer turbos are durable, but 200k miles???? holy crap! I recall in the mid 90's my HS teacher telling us to stay away from turbos, as they are not very reliable as they age over 100k miles, and b/c there's easily cheaper performance gains you can get with a NA motor. I guess the times have changed.

Prem fuel for a NA car doesnt' seem very attractive, esp. since the car will be a daily city driver mostly. I think I may hold out for a LPT 5 speed..I know they are rare, but I'm willing on waiting.

thanks for the heads-up

You got S60 LPT 5 speed sticks in Canada? In the U.S. they aren't rare - they don't exist.

By premium, do you mean 91 octane or 93 octane?
If 91 it will probably take 89 / 91 mix just fine.
--
'97 855na, Mobil 1, K&N, various IPD's and eBay's

I owned a 1978 SAAB 99 turbo, the second year. The turbo lasted an astonishing 30K miles before replacement! My current car has 153K miles on it's turbo and feels as strong as new. In both cases they are high pressure turbos.

BTW, my R gets 21-22 city and 27 highway (I always cruise 5-8mph above the limit)and it is an automatic.

Klaus
--
Just driving a 1998 V70R :)

yeah, my HS teacher was a self-proclaimed VOLVO NUT who purchased a new 80 242 with the B21a (with the single stromberg, not SU) carb, and drove it till it met it's match in a rear-end collision shortly after I left that school. He currently sports a 94ish 850GLE (remember, he hated turbos) Canadian spec with a mere 130ish hp.

I really respected that guy, esp. since he shared a liking of Volvo's, tho I think he was a little too biased in his class as he strongly beleived every other car manufacturer should learn from Volvo's lead, and that they had everything right.

I used to beleive that until I owned my 2 e30 bmw;s in university ...ever since then I realized that even with the reliability and durability of Volvo, there is room for improvement.

happy motoring!