I keep going back and forth with this.
In the past I purposely sought out a used volvo(240,740,940)with around 100,000 miles and was fairly sure that it would have value. I havent been disappointed.
I want to follow the same path with the s60, but there is just so much talk about maintenance issues etc.
Im seeing many 2001-2 S60s, beautiful cars with varying amounts of mileage(80,000 to 130,000). Prices ranging $7-10,000. So tempting.
I think I know what kind of experience it would be to own one of these. And I know I would love driving one. But, on the subject of maintenance, availability of parts etc, Im looking backing and forth from the S60(relatively rare) and , say, a toyota camry(seen at almost every intersection).
I think my past experience with volvo has imbued me a with a certain amount of brand loyalty, but Im wondering if now is the time to move on. But mainly I want a used car that I can pay less than $10,000 for, that will take me to around 250,000 miles, without breaking the bank.

All opinions welcome, and sought.

If all you want is a commuter car, go for the Toda. If you want a car for long trips, get a Volvo. Yes, the 01-02 did have too many problems, so look for an 03+. Same goes for the V70 and S80/with the 2.5T.

Klaus
--
Two great Volvos, a 1967 220 and a 1998 V70R

Thanks. I appreciate your views.
What about parts availability,cost of maintenance(diy,mostly,and always doing research into alternative fixes and such) and making it to 250,000 miles? Which is most appropriately supported in the after market.
Its getting close to decision time for me. Ive been mulling this for quite awhile now.
Finding a car that replaces the value of my 240s and 740 almost and impossible task.
Thanx.

My brother had a toyota, 4 cyl, and never had a problem in 240K miles. Most of them local miles.

You already know that Volvo will cost more to maintain, the parts are more expensive. But Volvos have a great safety record and most comfortable seats.

The light pressure turbo Vs the normally aspirated engines are both durable, if maintained. The turbo gets 1-2 mpg less than the NA engine, but it also has more standard features.

Toyota parts can be had anywhere, they are cheap, and the 4 cyl engine is easy to work on. They get great mileage. And if you are the same height as your average Japanese, the seats are OK. There are millions of Toyotas on the road compared to 100,000 Volvos.

Comparing Volvo to a Japanese car is like apples and oranges.

Klaus
--
Two great Volvos, a 1967 220 and a 1998 V70R

http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/hnp/cto/1922831126.html

or

http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/dak/cto/1919318931.html

Klaus
--
Two great Volvos, a 1967 220 and a 1998 V70R

Nice.
Similar to ones Ive been encountering. Unfortunately, Im in california.
Could you give me your view on the 2.4 and the 2.4T?

Thanx.