Volvo C70 2.0 T Convertible. Any advice/Reviews?

Treadway1

Hi folks,

Im looking to get a new car soon, and as Ive always fancied a convertible (Im only 27 by the way, this isnt some mid life crisis where Im about to buy a bright red soft top) and my money situation has now righted itself, I thought Id go for a Volvo C70 as Id always quite liked the look of them. I was just wondering if anyone had any experience of them?

The one Ive seen online is a 2000 (X Reg) 2 litre turbo LPT (Dont know what LPT means actually, so if anyone can fill me in), and its on for a fiver shy of £4k. Its being sold by a dealer, and in the pictures it looks quite well looked after, although I know pictures only tell half the story.

I can get a pretty good idea of how it handles on a test drive, but if wondered if anyone could tell me what one of these is like to live with, day to day. Are there problems with the soft top, or common engine problems, that kind of thing.

Anyway, any views/reviews would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

DKLS

LPT is low pressure turbo.

Treadway1

Thanks for that. So Ive just googled the difference between an LPT and HPT (High Pressure...) and cant really get a definitive answer other than one is high pressure and the other is low (Which is kind of obvious really... ). Does one give more boost at lower revs, whilst the other comes in nearer the top end of the rev meter though? Other than that, i cant really see what difference it would make. Fuel efficieny maybe???

harveybobbles

The LPT is probably more fun/wafty to drive like the Saab ones. The HPT is for raw power. however the C70 of that age got stuck with the old floor pan, dash etc from the old shape V70 so feels quire dated inside.

T5 is more fun to drive, but more pennies to buy.

Treadway1

Yeh, it does look like a bit of a jungle of grey plastic inside from the pictures, but seeing as I currently have a '98 Rover 620, I dont think I can complain!

Anyone else have anything to say about these?

sillygoose

I have had Volvo's with 2.0T LPT, easier to drive because the turbo has been designed to come in at lower revs and more gently. Gives a much smoother band of power and good torque across the range, less gear changing. No whoosh bang rocket though. C70 is a classic, will never look dated as its so well proportioned.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

It'll probably eat through front tyres like most reasonably powerful FWD cars, but you shouldn't have any problems. The interior was a bit squeaky on my '99 V70. You'll get some scuttle shake with the top down but not too much to worry about.

You should also consider the Mercedes R129 SL320 - a future classic and an absolutely bulletproof car, and one which will suffer less depreciation.

Treadway1

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

It'll probably eat through front tyres like most reasonably powerful FWD cars, but you shouldn't have any problems. The interior was a bit squeaky on my '99 V70. You'll get some scuttle shake with the top down but not too much to worry about.

You should also consider the Mercedes R129 SL320 - a future classic and an absolutely bulletproof car, and one which will suffer less depreciation.

What would the repair/running costs be like on the Merc though? Im guessing alot more than the volvo. Ive just googled the SL320 and have seen them before and think they look gorgeous, its just the worry of the traditional mercedes build quality (or lack thereof) that puts me off.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Traditional Mercedes build quality is almost unparalleled. Its the new cars produced between 1995-2002 (approx) period that is more questionable.

The R129 is extremely highly rated, and retains its value very well. Servicing will be expensive only if you use a dealer - this is no different to Volvo, who can be similarly expensive. A Mercedes specialist will be about 2/3rds the price.

If you're really interested, ask here:

http://forums.mercedesclub.org.uk/index.php

There is a lot of very good and neutral advice there.