2002 Volvo V70 Reviews - Page 2 of 3

2002 Volvo V70 D5 SE 2.4 turbo diesel from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2007
Most recent year of ownership2009
Engine and transmission 2.4 turbo diesel Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.0 / 10
Distance when acquired114000 miles
Most recent distance127000 miles
Previous carVolvo V70

Summary:

The best Volvo so far

Faults:

My cam belt tensioner bust well before the required time for a cam belt change. Garages were quoting a min of £2000 so am trying to fix it ourselves.. Unfortunately it need a new head and looks like only Volvo can supply this, and a reconditioned head is £1600. Not worth paying that plus all the other parts needed on a car this old, so it is now SORN off road, engine apart whilst I hunt for a damaged /write off to get a head.

Everything else fantastic, best Volvo I have owned yet. Had a V70 before, and it is better than that one. Hopefully Ford will sell Volvo back to the Swedes though!

General Comments:

This V70 manual diesel is as fast as the last petrol turbo version. Sometimes gets 60 to the gallon when I drive carefully.

Miss it really badly at the moment, but fingers crossed that it will be a happy ending for it rather than the scrap yard grave.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 2nd January, 2009

2002 Volvo V70 D5 SE 2.4 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2007
Most recent year of ownership2007
Engine and transmission 2.4 Automatic
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 0 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired28000 miles
Most recent distance33000 miles
Previous carToyota RAV4

Summary:

Great car - but seems like I've bought a duff one!

Faults:

Bought the car from the main dealer. The car just didn't want to start. Have only had it for 6mths and has been in 3 times with the same problem. The breakdown chap on the first instance, said that the injectors had gone, so the dealer replaced all of them. The second time, same issue, car turned over bu did not fire, breakdown chap said Fuel rail and fuel intake Had it all replaced. The dealer did the road test. Kept the car for 3 days, picked it up and the same issue. Am now totally fed-up with the car. Lov the handling and the car itself, but just wish it worked!

General Comments:

Great car - when it works!!

Roomy and comfortable - when I'm in it!!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 6th November, 2007

12th Nov 2007, 16:54

Reject the car. You really don't want to start getting involved with these common rail diesel engines once they start playing up. Most mechanics don't understand them, and the parts costs are astronomical. A set of 5 injectors would have set the warranty company back about UKP 1500.

Given that the car has hardly worked since you've owned it, I would have thought the Sale of Goods Act would be on your side. Really, you don't want to be owning this car once the warranty expires! It's probably been filled with petrol by a previous owner.

1st Feb 2009, 01:44

Plus, I don't think that they are looking at the less-expensive alternatives. There are more reasons than injectors and fuel rails for a car not to start. Sensors can cut the engine right out. A bad chip in the engine computer can stop everything, too. I would get a second opinion from a different place, if you really want to keep this car.

2002 Volvo V70 2.4T 2.4 5 cilinder low-pressure turbo from Belgium

Model year2002
Year of manufacture2002
First year of ownership2006
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 2.4 5 cilinder low-pressure turbo Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.7 / 10
Distance when acquired38000 kilometres
Most recent distance42500 kilometres
Previous carVolvo 960

Summary:

I like it, hope to love it

Faults:

I bought this car with only 38.000km with two years full warranty.

It's way too early to say anything about it: nothing wrong happened yet, and I hope it stays that way. I'll post some additional information when something "interesting" happens. I'm very curious about it's durability.

General Comments:

In comparison with the older bricks:

Good:

- They still have the amazing seats, I have never encountered seats this good (and this good-looking for that matter) ;

- The automatic gearbox is smooth (when warmed up) and yet responsive (i didn't like the vague shifting from the 2001 BMW 5-series, the 2001 Lexus GS300 and the 2004 Honda Accord I was looking at). So it's a great and luxurious drive, that's what convinced me to buy this car;

- Great torque and a fair gas mileage: between 8,5l and 10,5l/100 km of petrol, depending on how and where you drive... and I plan to convert it to run on LPG;

- The integrated child seats in the back are an excellent idea;

- As you should find in a Volvo-estate: loads of space.

Bad:

- 200 bhp on the front wheels, not an ideal combination... but I don't intend to race it. I'm very curious about driving it in the snow though;

- A transversal mounted engine: supposedly for safety reasons, but together with the front wheel drive resulting in an absolutely terrible (sometimes dangerous) turning radius... now I park this car as poor as a granny.

Still debating about:

- A cassette-player in a 2002 Volvo?

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 5th September, 2006

9th Oct 2006, 09:45

I have Volvo v70 2002year 2.4T (193hp) too, but it eats 12.5l/100km if you drive like a pensioner. So, I think you made a mistake :)

27th Oct 2006, 02:22

Thank you for your comment.

However, I check the petrol consumption continuously. In the best conditions - which is driving between 70 and 90km/h on flat roads without too many stopping and accelerating - I get 8,5l/100km. With medium conditions (highway cruising speed and 'pro-active' driving) : 10,5l/100km. Lot's of city driving, traffic jams and hard accelerating takes about 15l/100km, but that means consuming tires as well. Anyway, I think it strongly depends on how the car is driven, even more so than with other cars.

By the way, it's not unimportant to know that this is fuel consumption without leaving the headlights on in broad daylight and just a minor usage of the airco. And I use the cruise control whenever possible.

Now I drive on LPG, and I get about 12 to 13,5l/100km.

Average review marks: 7.5 / 10, based on 10 reviews