Would you buy a 07 car with 70k on it ?

Quigs Snr

I have spotted a car that I like, trouble is although its a 07 its got around 70,000 miles on it. Its a 1.8 Volvo s40 (same engine as the 1.8 Focus and Mondeo in their 125hp variant).

Do you think that this kind of mileage is a problem for that engine. Its got a full main dealer service history by the way. I am suspecting that this is fine and that such mileage in a short space of time is probably better than over a longer period as it means lots of longer trips (its a single owner car and wasn't a taxi)

useless

I'd buy a 3 year old car with 70k on it, but not an S40 with 70k on it, unless the price was really good.

The problem isn't the engine, I'd imagine that'd run for 150k+ miles with a bit of looking after. I'd be way more worried about the other work that might need to be done on the car after it had put up that many miles- suspension, shocks, wheelbearings etc. Volvo parts and labour are expensive.

The S40 is a nice car though, lots of toys (make sure you get the SE version), very comfortable, decent enough power without ever feeling really quick. Big downsides for me are the awkward boot opening and the lack of space in the back. And the monstrous depreciation of course:D

EPM

If it had a FSH that you could verify, was in good nick and the price reflected the mileage then why not?

It will be harder for you to sell in a few years so bear that in mind.

Gurgle

I'd buy that quicker than an '07 with 20k on it, I'd assume 70k to be genuine 20k to be clocked.

+ you should be able to get it at a good price

biko

S40 in general is a great car if you have a family etc.
I've had one years and it never let me down.
Not the quickest off the mark but safe and very comfortable for long journeys.
Have a mechanic check it out.

What people say
http://www.carsurvey.org/reviews/volvo/s40/2007/
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/index.htm?md=563

BrianD3

useless wrote: »

The problem isn't the engine, I'd imagine that'd run for 150k+ miles with a bit of looking after. I'd be way more worried about the other work that might need to be done on the car after it had put up that many miles- suspension, shocks, wheelbearings etc. Volvo parts and labour are expensive.

Depends on where and how its been driven. Many cars with high mileage will also have relatively unworn suspension, brakes, clutch etc. Due to spending their time on m-ways and good roads. Cars that spend most of their lives on bad roads or stuck in traffic will generally have less miles on the clock but could well have more wear.

Quigs Snr

Thanks for the replies folks. Its SE spec, so Leather and lots of toys. I know its just a 1.8 focus in a posh frock, but I do like the Volvo, my previous car before the current one was a completely ridiculous older shape S40 T4 (described by Jeremy Clarkson as a wardrobe with a Jet Engine bolted on). But it was reliable and I love the comfy seats in them.

I am not especially concerned with Labour costs as my brother used to be a mechanic in a main dealership (recently let go like most of his colleagues) and can quite easily take care of the spannerwork for me.

Pricewise, I think I can get it for about 9.5k and its in the color/interior combo that I like. My mileage per year is about 8-9k and I would not be looking to sell on any time soon. If I get 4 years out of it, I will consider that it owes me nothing and sell it on for half nothing.

unkel

Quigs Snr wrote: »

My mileage per year is about 8-9k and I would not be looking to sell on any time soon. If I get 4 years out of it, I will consider that it owes me nothing and sell it on for half nothing.

In that case, you will be generally better off with a high mileage car (provided of course the price reflects the higher mileage). I'd even consider one slightly older with even higher mileage.

One thing that makes you wonder is why the previous owner(s) chose a petrol model when clearly diesel would have worked out cheaper for them?

BrianD3

unkel wrote: »

One thing that makes you wonder is why the previous owner(s) chose a petrol model when clearly diesel would have worked out cheaper for them?

I think in 07, pre CO2 based VRT, a diesel S40 would have been a few thousand more expensive to buy than a 1.8 petrol. 70k in 3 years (assuming car was bought near start of 07) is above average but not huge mileage and maybe not enough for improved economy of the diesel to make up for the extra purchase price.

The owner might have been thinking about the potential for big bills on the diesel (DMFs, injectors, turbo, high pressure pump etc.) A valid concern IMO.

bazz26

The S40 was a very popular car among company reps even petrol models due to the comfort and standard spec. It may well have been a company car at some stage which probably means that it was also serviced and maintained properly on schedule. You should be able to confirm this via the service history. One thing to becareful with them though is the ABS/traction control unit is known to fail and costs around €2k to replace at a Volvo dealership. If the car displays an "emergency service needed" warning on the dash then run away.

I have a 06 diesel S40 just hitting 80k miles with no major problems other than a dodgy door lock during the freezing weather. The S40 is really well built and eats the miles with ease, the cabin is solid and the fit and finish is the same as the day it rolled out of the showroom. Even the leather seats in mine have shown very little wear or cracks.

The 1.8 litre petrol is a tried and tested Ford unit and while it will not win any races it has no timing belts or failed turbo to worry about. Properly maintained it should see another 70k miles with ease. At €9,500 the car is priced well for a 07 and if your only doing 8k or 9k miles a year then it makes alot of sense.