Hi,

I purchased a 98 Volvo Stick shift V70 AWD. The dealer told me there are less problems with the stick shift than the automatic box. Is this correct?

Also, any advise how to get longevity out of it.

I had a Subaru Outback 97 and the Volvo is a far superior car in both handling and creature comforts. I have not tried to Volvo in the Snow but negotiated snow tires.

Regards,

Darryl Chemel
 

V70 AWD manual? Wow! You must be in Canada to be that fortunate... I would think that a manual transmission if driven by someone who knows how to shift properly would almost be indestructible compared to an automatic transmission. Enjoy!

Yannis
--
'01 V70 T5 M, Classic Red/Graphite Leather, Sunroof, Cold Weather, Rear Spoiler, 4CD Surround Sound System, 17" Tethys alloys, K&N Filtercharger

Hope you never have any trouble with the hydraulic system or having it pop out of gear when coasting or when the clutch gives out or??? Good luck anyway

Yannis,
"Stick shift". Come on now, Yannis, you must be prejudiced against autoboxes!!! Secretly I envy you b/c if the 'better half' could drive a stick that is what I would have. I tried to show her the light but the car cried "uncle" and that was it!!

In general, automatic transmissions have gotten so good that they last hundreds of thousands of miles without a breakdown. A stick will eventually wear out the clutch, and that will require a significant repair. I know it sounds funny, but every mechanic I know says that in today's cars, automatics are less likely to require repair than manual transmissions.

That said, there does seem to be a high occurrance of auto tranny breakdowns in fwd Volvos in the 80 to 100K mile range. That being the case, I think the manual tranny is the better Volvo bet.

Yeah, I know...I am definitely biased toward manuals. And I am fortunate enough to be married to someone who also loves manual transmissions. SInce we were both raised in Europe, that is natural for both of us.

Yannis
--
'01 V70 T5 M, Classic Red/Graphite Leather, Sunroof, Cold Weather, Rear Spoiler, 4CD Surround Sound System, 17" Tethys alloys, K&N Filtercharger

My '84 240 had the original (yes, original!) clutch when I got rid of it at 243,000 miles.

My '86 245 received a new clutch at 178,000 mi, not because it was worn out, but because the rear main seal was leaking and causing the clutch to slip (disc was glazed). Mechanic speculated that the clutch would have probably been good for at least another 30K.

My opinion...if you don't ride the clutch or do smokey burn-outs (not a problem with a 240!) everyday, the clutch should last the life of the car.

Given the option, I would definitely go with the stick. The automatic 240/740/940 cars are pretty damn anemic, and the stick gets much better mileage. Would you believe that my 16 year old 240 gets 27-28mpg on the highway?

My experience is with the RWD cars, though, so some of these things (like lack of power) might not be an issue with newer bricks...

like the post says- 230,000 miles and my clutch still isn't slipping. Granted, I do a lot of highway miles so it is the best case situation. Given that the dealer wants close to a grand to do a clutch job, I'd say if you are one of the lucky auto tranny owners who's box lasts a long time, then clearly the auto is the less costly option in the long run, maintenance doolar wise. Though if you figure the manual is a grand cheaper to begin with, and if your clutch lasts, the manual trannies are bombproof, and you get better mileage, I'd say the manual is cheaper overall. Regardless, the manual is way more fun IMO, but plan on having a bit harder time re-selling it. Most soccer moms want the slush bucket.

'94 855M 230,000 miles orig. clutch, 28 mpg