I haunt the RWD forum since I have a 1990 745. I am considering replacing it with a 1998 XC or similar. We need(?) a comfy wagon for cross country trips and since this will be my wife's car, the extra ride height, the AWD and the general superior level of safety of the XC is a definite plus is a definite plus. However, safety also means not breaking down in the middle of the night on the highway, so reliability is a must for us. We are in snowy Canada.

I just test drove a 1998 XC with 200,000 km. It was in great shape and was a treat to drive, especially today with icy snow coming down. Cool machine. The lambda warning light was on. The rear mufflers looked sound but had a lot of surface rust. No creaks or rattles, suspension was nice and tight, steering felt good, lots of pep. Nice and quiet at speed. Popped the hood; nice and clean there, idles quietly. No rust or signs of damage on the body anywhere. Asking price is $10,900 Canadian. It has a beefy trailor hitch. The seller is a small used car lot that sells only executive type cars and had been there for years. The price seems a bit low so I wonder where this will be a money pit or not. I can do a lot of my own work but I am not familiar with the FWD/AWD newer Volvos. I would have it checked out by my local indy who I trust, based on past good work and honesty in the past.

Should I consider it or should I hold out for a nice 965 should one ever come up on the market here in Southern Ontario?

I know this is a common question but a word from you experts could save a soul a lot of grief. Thanks in advance.

Bill
--
Volvo Info Site 1990 745GLE 16valve

I have a 98 V70 XC and I LOVE it!!! It has 254,000 with and still runs like a dream,

That is refreshing to hear. Maybe this is a more common experience than what the posts on this board indicate. There is a natural bias to report the problems rather than the successes.

Bill
--
Volvo Info Site 1990 745GLE 16valve

Thanks for the insightful advice. I conclude that I should stay away from the XC. I drove an 855 and found it too stiff and full of rattles. The V70 or a 965 with four snows and limited slip seems to be the way to go. Probably V70 would win me over as long as I knew the weak points. I agree that the 960 has its weak points as well but I am more familiar with those and could probably nip them in the bud better than I could with the V70.

Thanks folks, I'll continue my hunt.

Bill
--
Volvo Info Site 1990 745GLE 16valve

My 854T is a lot of fun and the ride is hard with the sport suspension, until I put the snows on it.
My V70R with awd is amazing in the slippery stuff. ABS and traction control and awd are an impressive combination. The ride is not as smooth as a 965 and is not designed to be a comfort pillow. After an 8 hour road trip, my back doesn't complain and my legs haven't forgotten how to move.
Except for "new car" gremlins (unfamiliar noises) and the need for new brakes, the V70 awd is trouble free so far (new ABS module at 86K). The t6 engine is adequate for the weight and lost horse power due to the awd. The XC does have better cup holders, the 850 and SV70 shake the contents all over the console!

Looking for a new car is as much fun as bringing one home, have fun...

Klaus
--
98 V70Rawd(101Kmi), 95 854T(85K mi), 88 245(165K mi)

I have had a series of 700/900 Volvo's, including a 965, and currently have an 855 Tubo, a '98 Xc AWD, and a '91 745, all automatics.. I really liked the 965 for long trips, much more luxurious, powerful and refined than the other 700's we have had, although those were all really nice cars. Now that I am mostly running the FWD's (son has 700 at school), I realize that both the 855 and XC are just as comfortable and luxurious for travel, although the rear luggage space in the FWD wagons is clearly smaller than the RWD's. (passenger room in front and middle rows is just about equal, as is seating comfort vs: 965). Poor weather handling is clearly much better in FWD or AWD (MUCH beetter in AWD) even though I never really had issues with the RWD's with snows and sand bag in rear. 965 has limited slip differential so it is really pretty good in snow, just nothing as good as others. Gas mileage on trips was about 25-26 (US) for 965, and 28 on 855 Turbo, 25-26 on AWD (all on premium, which I find gets us about 2 MPG better on highway with full loads). The 855 does best around town, and 965 was worst with bigger engine always calling (still not bad, probably 18-19 in conditions where I get 21 or so in 855).

Handling is quite different among the 965, 855 and XC. 855 with high pressure turbo is by far the most sporty and actively fun to drive. The AWD is least sporty due to higher center of gravity and the feel-deadening effect of AWD - it just gets the job done with almost no sense of what is going on beneath you, even in worst conditions. The 965 was actually pretty good, but much more suppressed response feel than 855. 965 feels like a much bigger car on the road due mostly to the fact that the body is more square and you see out to the corners over a longer hood. The actual dimmensions and weights are pretty close, with AWD being heaviest due to extra mechanics.

Maintenance is sort of an open crap-shoot, IMO. Our 965 never had significant repairs through 155k, but was nonetheless a pretty expensive car to operate. It's big special risks seem to be a leaking radiator that leaks coolant into the transmission, causing very expensive transmission problems, and failing engine hydraulic lifters (about $1,000 US, mostly parts, I have been told). I think the lifter diagnosis is often a mis-diagnosis of a failing oil O-ring down in the sump, but on the 965 that is not insignificant either. Also, it has the same questionable AC as all of the other Volvo's. Otherwise, it seems to have just the normal range of maintenance and labor costs are less because of the spread out mechanicals versus FWD. Solid preventive maintenance is as always, critical for economical high mileage use.

On the 855 (and V70 FWD's) many of the routine maintenance chores seem easier to do and have longer intervals. When things do break, however, they are likely to be more buried and therefore have more labor hours to get at. My iompression so far, and including impressions from following these boards, is that the 850's are perhaps the best of the bunch for ongoing maintenance (no flames from 240's please - those and 700 have lots of little things to talk about too). The XC's only real difference is the AWD system itself, which clearly posses an added risk of significant repairs. However, there seem to be lots of trouble free AWD's out there, its partly that we only hear from the troubled ones on the repair boards. Aside from the dollar risk, I don't think I have heard of the AWD failing in a way that strands the car in the wilderness. Also, I believe that the statistical failure rate is less than 15%, although that is certainly enough to get your attention as a risk.

Overall, my wife absoultely loves her XC and it is the only car we have ever owned that she actually praises (mostly she ignores cars so long as they go every day without giving her anything to think about, so that is very high praise). My personal preference of the Volvo's we have had to date is the 855 Turbo. Note that we haven't got teh 855 ' 70's over 100k (miles) yet, but I have no inkling that they are not going to feel just as solid as the older ones as they do get there (aside from some of the XC / V70 interior door trim that do not wear like a Volvo). I would put the 965 third on my list, maintenance risks included, but still think very fondly of it. Even all three of my sons would take the 965 on trips over any of our other cars (the SL wasn't an option ;-) ) until the Turbo arrived, but that is their favorite now also. Best of luck with your choices
--
Mike Sullivan ('91 745 (184k), '95 855T (70k), '98 V70XC (83k). Past Volvo's: '85 744 (256k), '86 245 (165k), '86 245 (195k), '88 745 (208k), '93 965 (147k) .

Why not consider a FWD wagon? V70 or 855 with a good set of snows. They hold their own in bad weather (as long as you have winter tires on) and lack all the AWD problems. They are cheaper to run, lighter and faster than AWD. If you are considering another RWD Volvo, then AWD is not an issue for you, so avoid it if you can. More trouble than it's worth. Think how many times per year you REALLY need it. FWD with winter tires is plenty good most of the time as is RWD with winter tires (I have both). If you are happy with your 740 but want the comfort and additional safety features of the newer models, go for the V70 or 855 and buy a set of winter tires. I never really liked the Volvo AWD that much (especially compared to Subie or Audi) when I drove them. Who wants to throw away three good tires if one gets a blow-out? Well, if you own a AWD Volvo (excluding the latest models), you will have to do just that or risk damage to the transfer gears.

Good luck!
--
Vladimir. '98 S70 base, 5-speed manual - his, '93 945 - hers,

My '98 FWD still looks like it's brand-new, just as long as I'm not wearing my glasses. At 154k it still uses no oil between routine oil changes.

I think the FWD-AWD Volvos stand the test of time at least as well as RWDs as far as appearances go. Mechanically, the newer cars tend to be somewhat "maintenance intensive" and the problem areas aren't things that are obvious, until they break completely.

I would not buy a 960.

I'd buy a FWD SV70 or 850 and a set of four snow tires long before AWD.

-BTC

'98 V70 T5 5-speed, 154k mi, front IPD stabilizer bar, rear factory HD bar, Bilstein HD, Volvo strut tower brace and skidplate, e-codes, V-1, Mobil-1 since new, Michelin Arctic Alpins

wait for the 965, but keep looking actively and you'll find it.

FWD are not as reliable and durable as the RWD. The FWD are more confy, more powerful, more luxurious, more fun to drive, BUT all that comes at a price.

Higher maintenance costs, more expensive parts, and tight engine bay for the DIY guy.

AWD in '98-'00 are very troublesome and expensive to repair. Do a search on beveled gear on this site and you'll see.
--
'88 240, '92 745, '98 v70 John, Tampa Bay

Thanks. The search engine is not working on the board right now but I will indeed do the search. I do like the RWD but the 965 is elusive plus it too has some issues. Still, I agree that the 7/9 series is way cheaper to run than the FWD/AWDs. It was a bit scary looking under the hood and under the car of the XC.

Bill


--
Volvo Info Site 1990 745GLE 16valve