Re: Re:
Mike Muz 67":282ss3ku said:
Thanks for your experiences chaps . Is there anything specific to look for , weaknesses to look for when buying one ?
Assuming you're looking at 850s / classic 70s, they're pretty robust.
4 speed autos are pretty strong, will run (with a little bit of care - like ATF changes) for a long life. I'd steer clear of the early 850s - mainly because there were some subtle changes (like transmission control unit and versions). There were kind of 2 phase of the 850s, too.
Engines tend to be pretty bulletproof - especially NA ones. All inline 5s (even the diesel). Never driven any of the 2.0 engines, though - it's said they're pretty uninspiring. Also the 2.5T (which was a low-blow turbo'd version of the 2.5 20v engine) seems to be a bit more fragile in real life - on paper it sounds a great idea, but the T5 had bolstered internals (which is why the capacity is slightly less).
Newer, phase 2 of the 70 series look the same, but for petrol are easily spotted when taking a look under the bonnet - ETMs and coil on lead, rather than main coil and dissy cap. ETMs were known to be problematic, software didn't truly address it, as the tracks wore. Also, they had the newer, "adaptive" 5 speed Aisin Warner auto. Whether it was all of their doing (in terms of software) or something more inherent, I'm not exactly sure - but not as good to drive (essentially, urgency and amount of downshifts judged from the speed of throttle movement). 4 speed auto was very responsive, and had mode switches. The 4 speed auto was used for the odd R model, in an auto guise (rather than the newer 5 speed), which kind of implies what their trust was with, too.
T5s that have had a lot of diddling to them, need to be looked out for, especially if an auto - there are limits. Turbos always seemed reasonably robust, and it always seemed to be more about oil seals than wholesale failure of the turbo. With a heavy right foot - as you'd expect - they eat front tires for brunch.
For me, the sweet spot would be 95-98 before then, some early gremlins, after then, some newer tech that just brought problems and no benefits. The newer 2.4 NA units were very smooth, though.
PCV systems could get clogged up, and not the easiest to sort out. Parts weren't always that bad. There was a parts guy for a proper Volvo dealers that used to hang-out in Volvo forums, and you'd get discount and official parts sent mail order. Although not as cheap as pattern, it often made it a bit of a no-brainer in which to choose.
I never owned a manual one, all mine were autos. So not much to say about manuals, really - other than I don't recall reading about much in the way of problems with them or clutches, much.
Although may have had a hard life by now, I always found the seats and the cabin a nice place to be in. I did plenty of long journeys in them, and even now, after everything else I've owned, they'd still be my choice for long runs.
Air-con may, or may not work, and can be a number of things. Earlier 850s didn't always get pollen filters, so all sorts of stuff used to get down the intake, end up on the evaporator, and it'd eventually rot and fail. Like in many cars, they are buried quite a way in the dash. Heater matrix another known one to start leaking, too - but nothing like as bad (and in fact relatively easy) to replace. Air-con compressor clutches could easily wear down out of tolerance, as it was the type of system that would cycle frequently when gas pressure was getting lower, and in turn, the clutch would wear down, and eventually be out of spec. I still have an air-con compressor for one, I reshimmed, after having a reshimmed replacement put on one of mine.
Otherwise, typically rock-solid, stable, handle reasonably for a car that's getting on for being large.
