Sign In Join 



Volvo V70 Engine Issues

79 messages,  Last post on Oct 07, 2009 at 7:34 AM

You are in the Volvo V70 Maintenance & Repair Forum. Your Host is kcram

What is this discussion about? Volvo V70, Volvo V70 R, Engine, Wagon


Messages Page 1 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#1 of 79
Volvo V70 Engine issues by pf_flyer HOST
Oct 30, 2006 (3:47 pm)
Reply
Having a problem under the hood of your V70? Post your questions and solutions here.
#2 of 79
Repair advice for Volvo V70 by tread1
Oct 26, 2005 (11:33 am)
Reply
My 99 Volvo V70 station wagon with 89,000 miles would not start last week and was towed to the dealership. They advised me that the belt tensioner had broken and subsequintly bent one of the cylinder heads. I am looking at very expensive repairs and was not sure of my options. Has anyone experienced this problem?
#3 of 79
Re: Repair advice for Volvo V70 [tread1] by paulf1
Nov 29, 2005 (12:13 pm)
Reply

Replying to: tread1 (Oct 26, 2005 11:33 am)

Every fix this..... had the same problem myself.....kinda expensive to say the least.
Whats youe location.
#4 of 79
Re: Repair advice for Volvo V70 [tread1] by navy98
Dec 01, 2005 (5:59 pm)
Reply

Replying to: tread1 (Oct 26, 2005 11:33 am)

Yes, this happened to me also at low mileage (62,000 miles). I have a 98 V70 Cross Country (AWD). I bought it used from a dealer when it had 58,000 miles, so it was just outside its factory warranty (& the dealer only provided a 2K or 2 mo used car warranty). I took it in for a very thorough (over $800) 60K service 2 months later, and 3 months after that (at 62,000 miles), I had the same problem you had. Only ALL of the cylinder heads were smashed when the belt tensioner broke. It cost me $5,000.00 for a Volvo specialist in the DC area to fix the engine. They said that it shouldn't have happened, especially at such a low mileage. They've worked exclusively with Volvos and VWs and NEVER saw this happen. I think the mfg. manual doesn't even include checking the belt until 75K miles or higher in the maintenance schedule. I love my Volvo, but this was a real pisser! Had I been neglectful of the maintenance schedule or purchased the car from an individual rather than a dealer (who assured me that it had passed a 152 point pre-sale inspection), I could see that MAYBE I deserved it. But I BABIED the car and it still happened. Now hearing that it happened to you, it makes me think it was a manufacturing defect. How do we find out?
#5 of 79
Re: Repair advice for Volvo V70 [navy98] by stmss
Dec 02, 2005 (6:56 am)
Reply

Replying to: navy98 (Dec 01, 2005 5:59 pm)

For what it is worth, I just had ours changed out (belt and idler) on our 99V70 with 120,000 km (75k miles). I think the owners manual says 160,000 km (100k miles). However, the dealer highly recommeded it be changed sooner (no reason given) and for a couple of hundred bucks and given the catastrophic consequence of failure that you have witnessed, I did.
 
I would say something is up and they must be seeing early failures. Of course, Volvo would never recall?
#6 of 79
Regular vs. Premium by va4lvrs
Mar 08, 2006 (6:08 pm)
Reply
I'm trying to figure out if there are significant drawbacks to using regular gasoline with the 2006 Volvo 2.4 I5 engines (non turbo). My understanding is that the turbos do require premium. Correct? Currently have an 04' S60 2.4 that we fill up with regular and it seems to be doing ok. Now that we're looking at getting the V70, the question of engine type has come up and the associated gas requirements. Do the volvo engines burn one grade of gas cleaner then the other?
 
Any input or direction would be appreciated.
 
Cheers.
#7 of 79
Re: Regular vs. Premium [va4lvrs] by crissman
Mar 08, 2006 (9:18 pm)
Reply

Replying to: va4lvrs (Mar 08, 2006 6:08 pm)

Our '05 V70 with 2.4 (non turbo) has been doing fine burning regular (87 octane) gas. It was a demonstrator/loaner that was purchased about 6 weeks ago and I've only pumped regular, so I can't really make a comparison. As long as it doesn't knock and continues to get about 24 mpg for daily commuting I'll stick with regular. I don't think there were any engine changes in the '06 model. As far as which burns cleaner, I don't think there's a difference. What I've heard is if the engine tolerates it (no knocking) use it and save your money.
#8 of 79
Re: Regular vs. Premium [va4lvrs] by jrkont
Mar 09, 2006 (4:29 pm)
Reply

Replying to: va4lvrs (Mar 08, 2006 6:08 pm)

I have an 04 V70 2.5T. The owner's manual is quite clear on this. The non turbo can use 87 octane, the turbo needs 91 octane, minimum.
#9 of 79
Re: Regular vs. Premium [jrkont] by jim314
Mar 15, 2006 (9:44 am)
Reply

Replying to: jrkont (Mar 09, 2006 4:29 pm)

My wife has an 04 V70 base model non-turbo 2.4L 168 hp. The specs page of the owners manual gives the compression ratio (CR) as 10.3. The compression ratio of the 2.5T 300hp is only 8.5, and the other turbos are either 8.5 or 9.0.
 
If the octane requirements are determined by the CR, the the non-turbo enigine has the highest octane requirement. (I understand that the effective compression ratio can be different from the nominal one depending on the valve timing, but I'm assuming this is not in effect here.
 
Page 84 of the manual states that, "Volvo engines are designed for optimum performance on unleaded premium gasoline with octane rating AKI 91. . . . The minimum octane requirement is AKI 87 (RON91)."
 
I believe the AKI octane number is what is given on the pumps. So Volvo is not rulling out the use of regular unleaded.
 
What I get from this is that these cars can be driven hard with AKI 91 fuel and probably the knock sensor would not detect any knocking which would initiate retardation of the timing. Even if you used AKI 87 and drove it hard the knock sensor should protect the engins from knock damage, but you might not get full horsepower or as high a mpg.
 
My dealer however, recommends premium which in the Dallas area is AKI 93 octane, which costs 20 cents a gallon more than AKI 87. AKI 91 is not sold here, but 89 is. Probably our V70 would run fine on 89 or even 87, but we use 93 to "be safe". The extra money is not worth the worry. The next trip I may mix 93 ande 89 to get 91 and see if the highway mpg is different. With 93 we get 30 to 31.5 mpg on the highway at 70 to 75 mph with the a/c on.
#10 of 79
Re: Regular vs. Premium [jim314] by jim314
Mar 15, 2006 (3:13 pm)
Reply

Replying to: jim314 (Mar 15, 2006 9:44 am)

I don't believe the N/A 2.4L V70 uses the "Atkinson" cycle like the Toyota Prius. The Prius has a nominal compression ratio of 13.5, but still uses regular gas as far as I know. The Atkinson cycle reportedly lowers the effective CR by allowing some intake air to flow back into the intake manifold. What I don't understand is why some of the fuel wouldn't flow back too. I assume the IC engine in the Prius is not direct injection (i.e. not directly into the cylinder), but I don't know.
 
From Wikipedia:
 
"The Atkinson cycle engine is a type of Internal combustion engine invented by James Atkinson in 1882. The Atkinson cycle is designed to provide efficiency at the expense of power.
 
The Atkinson cycle allows the intake, compression, power, and exhaust strokes of the four-stroke cycle to occur in a single turn of the crankshaft. Owing to the linkage, the expansion ratio is greater than the compression ratio, leading to greater efficiency than with engines using the alternative Otto cycle.
 
The Atkinson cycle may also refer to a four stroke engine in which the intake valve is held open longer than normal to allow a reverse flow of intake air into the intake manifold. This reduces the effective compression ratio and, when combined with an increased stroke and/or reduced combustion chamber volume, allows the expansion ratio to exceed the compression ratio while retaining a normal compression pressure. This is desirable for improved fuel economy because the compression ratio in a spark ignition engine is limited by the octane rating of the fuel used. A high expansion ratio delivers a longer power stroke, allowing more expansion of the combustion gases and reducing the amount of heat wasted in the exhaust. This makes for a more efficient engine.
 
The disadvantage of the four-stroke Atkinson cycle engine versus the more common Otto cycle engine is reduced power density. Because a smaller portion of the intake stroke is devoted to compressing the intake air, an Atkinson cycle engine does not intake as much air as would a similarly-designed and sized Otto cycle engine.
 
Four stroke engines of this type with this same type of intake valve motion but with forced induction (supercharging) are known as Miller cycle engines.
 
Multiple production vehicles use Atkinson cycle engines:
 
Toyota Prius hybrid electric (front-wheel-drive)
Ford Escape hybrid electric (front- and four-wheel drive)
Toyota Highlander hybrid electric (front- and four-wheel drive)
Lexus RX400h hybrid electric (front- and four-wheel drive)
In all of these vehicles, the lower power level of the Atkinson cycle engine is compensated for through the use of electric motors in a hybrid electric drive train. These electric motors can be used independent of, or in combination with, the Atkinson cycle engine."

Messages Page 1 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement