Hello Forum, I’m a newbie hear and wanna be Volvo owner.

I’m coming from a BMW 740, which was a maintenance nightmare, and have decided to go with a non-turbo 850.

I found a 1996 850 with 56k on the clock, selling for 5900 firm, auto check records indicate it was a fleet/lease vehicle. I’m a little worried about it having so few miles on it, like maybe it was a lemon and always in the shop.
Any thoughts on this? Think it’s a good deal?


Another vehicle I found is a 97 850 with 107k on the clock for 4900. This one is in the color I want but has almost double the mileage. Which would you guys go with?

I know that good maintenance records are important. But if the 96 with so few miles doesn’t have them would it still be a safe bet?

Don’t hold back now let me know what you think, I need advice

Thanks, J

 

I personally would go for a turbo model. But that is me.

On the two cars your looking at I would have them both checked out, wouldn't hurt.

The 96 doesn't have any paper work? Do not buy it if it doesn't have paper work. That is a big no no. Also if your really interested in the 96 have it looked at by a mech you trust they will find everything that is wrong with it. But I wouldn't bother with it because there is no paper work.

 

97 is pretty expensive.

 

Welcome to the forum.

>I’m coming from a BMW 740, which was a maintenance nightmare
I would blame James Bond for that.

After hearing many people's opinions, I believe you'd be much happier to go with turbo. There is not muchreliability differences between turbo & NA, and NA seems sluggish.

There's a gentleman here who has owned many 850s, and I'm sure he would say...

GET THE TURBO!!!

Well, choosing a car is personal preference & budget. Whatever you choose, come back here for maintenance tips.

I wish you find a good Volvo.


JPN

 

As you'll see, the mileages you are looking at are both relatively lower than many other owners. I have 342,000km on the car and I don't add ANY oil between oil changes (I do mine between 4000 and 5000km.. fresh oil = reduced likelihood of sludging). Two words: SERVICE HISTORY.If onehas it and the other doesn't, that would be very valuable information. Fleet vehicle to me means it probably didn't have an owner who loved it. Just some car in the company pool.

When properly serviced these cars last a very long time. Fall behind on or neglect altogether the maintenance, and you will find yourself with a lot of bills that make the car seem toa newbielike a bad choice. Spend the money and/or time to maintain them and they'll outlast most other cars on the road. And they'll be a pleasure to drive throughout that time.

We had a Honda Civic with 290,000km on it that was leaving pieces of the body behind for the previous 6 years (rust... no surprise). The car still ran (definitely not as well as the Volvo), the parts generally were similarly priced (Honda sometimes cheaper) but hands down, the Volvo still looks great for her age (couple spots of surface rust around the wheelwell lips) and runs like a charm. And we don't even have to talk about the difference in ride, do we?...

(...Opinions are of course worth what you pay for them... )

 

My vote would be the one with the service record. AND THEN take it to a mechanic before your buy it to get it checked out. I wish I had done that.

 

I would rather get a car that has more miles, but has maintenance records, that one that has low mileage and no paperwork. You know, it could've been sitting in a garage for 2 years undriven/unmaintained (hence the low miles?), I think that's the worst thing that could happen.

 

GET THE TURBO!!!

Test drive these two cars then find a Turbo model and test drive it. Then make your decision. The maintenance and fuel economy is virtually identical. Back in 94 when I bought my first 850 I was in the process of buying an NA and then test drove the 850 Turbo. There was no way I was buying the NA after one quick drive. By the way both those cars are over priced regardless of the mileage.

 

Thanks Jim, it made me laugh so bad thatI was on the floor.


JPN

 

Yeah, Jim's right.

Both of those cars are incredibly overpriced.

A Turbo model might fetch that much, but even then, it would probably be somewhat of a stretch.

 

thanks for all the input, it really helps.

I just found out that my friend's sister, has a 1998 V70XC, 104k miles with maintance records from the time she baught it, about 50k ago. Her parents get first dibs, but if they don't want it i can get it for 6800. I checked KBB and this seems like a fair price, what do you guys think?



[EDIT] sorry, I prolly should have posted this in the V70 section, but I wanted to let you guys know where i was in my search.

 

^The price is a lot better than the first 2 cars you gave us.

The car's AWD too, which will be nice for snowy climates, and I rode a friend's Legacy AWD, and it seemed to be very very smooth. I don't know if it's the AWD or just the car, but I really liked it.

 

Personally, I didn't and still don't want an AWD Volvo. My son is just the opposite and got a 98 V70R which has AWD and he and his wife both like it a lot. I think the FWD is plenty of traction for me in the snow. I never get stuck in the snow. If I don't think the FWD car will make it, I stay home until the roads are clear enough for me to feel comfortable. And I live out in the country and have never stayed home because of snow. I did have a 4WD Suburban until the last two years though. For Volvo's I just feel the AWD is something more to have trouble with. Again this is just totally my opinion.