Hello All,

I am thinking of purchasing a V70 from 2007 older equipped with a 2.5 liter non-turbo engine and FWD. Or a 2008 or newer V70 with a 3.2 liter non-turbo with FWD. Does anyone have any advice or opinion which engine is better? I welcome your comments.

Thank you,

Hugh

Hugh - You are a model member of the Brickboare community.

Unlike many, you let us know what happened to your issue, and you thank people for their suggestions.

Thank You!

James,

Thanks for your kind words. I am grateful for the information and assistance I receive from other members of this community. I don't know everything, and when I am faced with an issue with one of my 5 Volvos (3 of which are driven by my daughters out-of-state) the assistance is crucial. Besides saying "Thank You" for this assistance, I can "Do my part" by sharing with this community what the outcome is (when it occurs) when the problem or issued is solved.

Another part of my motivation is I think of a saying: "I may not remember what you said, but I will remember how you made me feel." That's why I make it a point to say "Thank You". People appreciate being recognized for their assistance, and to me me, it is just "The Right Thing to do." When I ultimately purchased a replacement V70 for one of my daughters, I will post what engine I ultimately purchased: 2.5T or 3.2 naturally aspirated. I have been provided information that has helped me to be informed and again, I am thankful for that help.

Hugh

We owned three 850s with 5 cylinder engines.

One 2.5 was 19 years old when my daughter sent it t a junkyard - it still ran quite well, but had troubles with starting (if she had told me, I would have advised a flywheel position sensor). It also had a dented hood when she forgot to latch the hood - luckily she had a canoe on the roof and the hood was not destroyed. She could not find a mechanic in Norther MN to work on it!

Our 2,5 sedan blew a head gasket at 96K miles - some of the gasket was actually missing!

Out 2.4 855R was a rocket and we had it until it was 17 years old with no problems. I traded it because it needed a complete brake job (hoses, calipers, and pads) which would cost what the car was worth.

An anecdote - when I traded it, asked the used car manager what they would do with it, he said send it to the auction. I told hem to take it up on the nearby highway and leave the entrance at 40MPH and boot it - then accelerate up to any speed he dared. The following week the the car was in their newspaper ad!

A guy on Nantucket Island bought it - imagine a Volvo 855R on a small island where the top speed limit is 35MPH.

We own a '12 XC70 with a 3.2 and love it.

We traded our '08 XC70 with a 3.2 and loved it as well. Its replacement is a '17 S60 XC Turbo, it is a special model and fun to drive.

When I compare a regular 2.5 to a 3.2 or a 2.4T, the 2.5 just seemed to make noise and not accelerate any near as well as the other two when one mashed the gas pedal!

The 2.5s kept up with any traffic, I was just spoiled by the 855R

James,

Thank you for your reply.

Hugh

There has been reported oil consumption problems with 2012 - 2016 5 cylinder using oil and low oil light not coming on, resulting in engine failure. A google search will show some of the issues. The problem was a new type of piston ring that allowed excessive consumption. Also, the dip stick was too long, or something, and it appeared to show OK oil level when it was low.

Hello All,

I spoke to my local Volvo mechanic. He preferred the 2.5T over the 3.2 engine. Said there were more issues with regard to belts and pulleys on that engine. It wasn't a bad engine, but based upon his experience he liked the 2.5T better. However he said the later year 2.5T engines had oil consumption problems due to defective piston rings. He wasn't sure what year V70s had the oil consumption issues. Does anyone know what model year V70 wagons were affected? Thank to all who reply.

Hugh

I have had both. The non-turbo 5-cylinder is my choice. I kept it the longest (30 years) and had no major issues. Just kept going and sounds so cool.

Had a no-turbo 6-cyliner for 3 years, thinking I would sell the 5-cylinder but couldn't part with it. Again, the six was nice, but seemed boring. Didn't have it long enough to comment on issues, but it was trouble free during my ownership.

Cheers!

I have had both. The non-turbo 5-cylinder is my choice. I kept it the longest (30 years) and had no major issues. Just kept going and sounds so cool.

Had a no-turbo 6-cyliner for 3 years, thinking I would sell the 5-cylinder but couldn't part with it. Again, the six was nice, but seemed boring. Didn't have it long enough to comment on issues, but it was trouble free during my ownership.

Cheers!

David,

Thank you for your reply.

Hugh