Author Topic: Used Vehicle Review: Volvo S60, 2001-2010  (Read 6082 times)

Offline Autos_Editor

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 8326
  • Carma: +91/-560
  • member
    • View Profile
Used Vehicle Review: Volvo S60, 2001-2010
« on: September 30, 2010, 04:05:16 am »



Problems to look out for in used Volvo S60 sedans include broken or worn engine mounts, worn suspension components, leaking radiators, and faulty electronic throttle modules, says Chris Chase. "Look for a car that comes with detailed service records," he recommends.

Read More...

Offline ktm525

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 15720
  • Carma: +117/-434
  • Just walk away!
    • View Profile
  • Cars: Land Rover LR4, Honda Ridgeline, Husqvarna FE501
Re: Used Vehicle Review: Volvo S60, 2001-2010
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2010, 10:56:41 am »
Tight tight tight back seat. The front seats must have been pushed all the way forward for the photos. Mediocre fuel economy, big turn radius and no steering feel. Pass.

Sven

  • Guest
Re: Used Vehicle Review: Volvo S60, 2001-2010
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2010, 04:09:34 pm »
The 240 may have been "unlovely" to some, but once Volvo perfected the wiring harnesses on those cars in the mid-80's, these were the cars that made Volvo's reputation. A 240 with the B21/23 or the B230F and (ideally) an M46 transmission will run pretty well indefinitely with oil changes (same applies to the 700 and 900 (4 cylinder) series).

An S60?  ::)Ha. Ha-ha. Ha-ha-ha... :rofl:

coast

  • Guest
Re: Used Vehicle Review: Volvo S60, 2001-2010
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2010, 06:24:46 pm »
The Volvo 240 would run forever as long as you keep fixing it.  I knew several people who had them and a steady stream of relatively minor (but expensive) repairs was required to keep them going.  That's most Volvos owners long since switched to Japanese cars.

The one exception I know is my father in law whose been driving Volvos since the 60's and now drives a 2005 S60.  He has no trouble matching 11 L/100km around town and mid 7L/100 km on the hwy (2wd, non turbo).  The transmission was replaced under warranty when it was 2 years old but has been fine since.  Other then that it's been toublefree.

He still misses his 1995 850 most, roomier then S60, much nicer to drive then the 240 (and 140).

Offline Shnak

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 7448
  • Carma: +8/-49
  • Gender: Male
  • New toy! :)
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2010 Hyundai Sonata Limited, 2006 Kia Sportage
Re: Used Vehicle Review: Volvo S60, 2001-2010
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2010, 07:41:05 am »
Tight tight tight back seat. The front seats must have been pushed all the way forward for the photos. Mediocre fuel economy, big turn radius and no steering feel. Pass.

Wouldn't most of those negatives also apply to your previous V70R, or did the wagon format and turbo change the car completely for you?

Offline ktm525

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 15720
  • Carma: +117/-434
  • Just walk away!
    • View Profile
  • Cars: Land Rover LR4, Honda Ridgeline, Husqvarna FE501
Re: Used Vehicle Review: Volvo S60, 2001-2010
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2010, 11:39:17 am »
Tight tight tight back seat. The front seats must have been pushed all the way forward for the photos. Mediocre fuel economy, big turn radius and no steering feel. Pass.

Wouldn't most of those negatives also apply to your previous V70R, or did the wagon format and turbo change the car completely for you?

V70 has more rear seat room than the S60. Still the marginal rear seat room in the V70 was one of the reasons for the sale. Same goes for the big turn radius, the inline 5 takes up a lot of room. At least in the R the so-so fuel economy came with oodles of power.


Despite these issues the V70 was still a great car, the wagon is classic and Volvo does it well. The S60 on the other hand...There are lots of other sedans that do it better, much better, for less $.

Offline Shnak

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 7448
  • Carma: +8/-49
  • Gender: Male
  • New toy! :)
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2010 Hyundai Sonata Limited, 2006 Kia Sportage
Re: Used Vehicle Review: Volvo S60, 2001-2010
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2010, 11:43:25 am »
Tight tight tight back seat. The front seats must have been pushed all the way forward for the photos. Mediocre fuel economy, big turn radius and no steering feel. Pass.

Wouldn't most of those negatives also apply to your previous V70R, or did the wagon format and turbo change the car completely for you?

V70 has more rear seat room than the S60. Still the marginal rear seat room in the V70 was one of the reasons for the sale. Same goes for the big turn radius, the inline 5 takes up a lot of room. At least in the R the so-so fuel economy came with oodles of power.

Despite these issues the V70 was still a great car, the wagon is classic and Volvo does it well. The S60 on the other hand...There are lots of other sedans that do it better, much better, for less $.

Oh, ok. Other than more headroom, I would've thought that the V70 and S60 had very similar rear passenger space for the legs/hips. The V70 is definitely a great vehicle and would definitely be on my radar is Volvo's overall reliability was better. It's too bad really... they look great, drive great, great overall package... just lacking in the reliability department. Sure, an extended warranty would somewhat compensate for that... but I'm not sure I'd be willing to take the chance of having to know my dealership's mechanics on a first-name basis...  :-\

Offline Erik

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 3949
  • Carma: +60/-374
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2000 Honda Insight
Re: Used Vehicle Review: Volvo S60, 2001-2010
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2010, 10:41:00 pm »
When I was hunting for Tall Guy Cars, I figured the Volvo would be a shoo-in, but I couldn't get comfy in it. Volvo used to be a tall guys top pick. Go figure.
"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive." - Sir William Lyons