SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello. I'm new to the forum and this is my first post. I'm the owner of a 2012 XC60 3.2 AWD which I love. This weekend thru USAA's car buying service I located what appears to be a low mileage (75K) 2007 C70 T5. According to Carfax it's single owner and for the first 7 years of ownership it was regularly serviced by their Volvo dealer. That being said I'm very bullish about the car.

However a few things caught my eye and I would value your input. According to the Carfax records it seems to go thru tires and front brake rotors and pads at an accelerated rate. Please note below.

  • 2 X Complete Sets of Tires replaced at 18K and 44K
  • 3 X Front Brake Rotors and Pad Replace at 19K, 36K and 72K

Is there something amiss with this car or is this normal for the C70 and something for which I must just accept as a part of my ownership budget?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Two complete sets in 9 years looks more like changing them because of age, not because of wear. The same could be the break exchange at 36k: This might have been due to rust from not using the car for a few month ( had to do the same on my C70I after knee surgery).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,591 Posts
welcome! would be nice to add the c70 to the xc60.

rear brakes on our cars get worn at close to 2x the rate as the fronts, but i also know brake jobs are a revenue generator for dealers. my dealer told me that i needed the front and rears brakes and rotors replaced around 30k miles (rears had already been replaced at 17k) so i thought like you, it would be an every 15-20k maintenance issue. with close to $1000 i was quoted, i took the c70 to my independent tire/brake place and they said the pads were fine and i got another 10k miles on rears before we replaced them with akebono ceramic pads and centric rotors (great performance, much less brake dust). the car is still on original front pads/rotors @ 60k miles although i'll probably do the fronts sometime in the next 10k miles.

as for tires, agree the olstyle that age is one reason to change them after 5-7 years, but it also depends on what kind of tires they were using. summer tires can wear out in 15-30k miles. all seasons can last 40-60k+ miles with regular tire rotations. but stock, the rear camber arms are not adjustable so if you have a c70 that's rear camber is set at -2.5, you may get premature uneven wear. for about $100-150 you can get adjustable cambers arms to dial the camber to -1.5 which still provides decent cornering performance but more even tire wear.

the stock all-season michelin primacy on my car still had decent tread at 27k when i bought it, but had become incredibly noisy so i replaced them...no doubt the original owner of your c70 did the same. if they replaced it with the same tire (which dealers tend to do), i'm not surprised they were replaced at the same time interval later.

also at 70k miles i'd look to see if other maintenance/servicing, like spark plugs, brake fluid, transmission fluid (hot button issue- i'm on the drain/fill side) as well as worn suspension parts (shocks, control arms) and engine mounts have been replaced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
I agree with the above posters that these are usual replacement items for mileage, wear, and time issues. In my case the dealer seems eager to do brake work in order to increase his income from warranty repairs. He must show Volvo some standard of wear which is reasonable, but on my own I would go farther without worry if it were my own pocket paying. This could have played a role. I also had the original tire noise issue. I chose Hankook replacement and it seems that after 24k the noise is creeping in as before though TireRack called them "low noise" choice.
It sounds to me that this is a good choice car and you have previous Volvo experience. If I were looking and found such a car I would jump on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,842 Posts
I also had very bad tire wear on my 2007. When my car was new, it had the 18" wheel option, which came with high-performance summer-only tires, Pirelli PZero Rosso's. If I recall right, these lasted a VERY short 13k miles, and got very noisy towards the end, also. Contributing to this was (I think) a rear-alignment from the factory that may have been good for handling, but was not good for tire wear.

I had somewhat better luck with my next tires, which were Conti DSW's - basically also a high performance tire, but all-season. I also had a 4-wheel alignment done. This resulted in somewhat better tire life, but still only (IIRC) about 27k miles, or something like that. This is well short of what this brand/model of tire seems to achieve on other cars. I think that part of the issue is that our C70's have a lot of negative camber built in at the back. My impression is that the amount of negative camber was reduced on later C70 model years. But 2007's still have a lot of negative camber.

I'm on my third set of tires, which I've been much more happy with. Yokohama YK-580's, which are a special model designation used only by America's Tires / Discount Tires stores. But they are a high-performance all-season tire - if you poke around Yoko's web site you can kind of figure out which standard Yoko tire they are closest to. https://www.yokohamatire.com/tires/detail/yk580

The Yoko's actually handle a bit better than the Conti's, but with a slightly harsher ride. But, more importantly, I already have 23k miles on them, and they have a lot of tread left. I think they will give me 40k miles, maybe more. This is still less than their tread wear rating, but for our cars it is pretty good. (My YK-580's are W-rated, and have a 45k tread-wear rating, versus 60k for the V and H-rated versions.) I definitely recommend them for C70 use...

Another general comment is that C70's that came with 17" wheels generally achieve a lot better tire wear. Both because longer-lasting tires were provided to begin with, and also because the "less agressive" profile of 17" wheels allows more choices of tire types, including some more mileage-oriented tires (like Michelin Primacy, as just one example).

As for brakes, I've also experienced the rear pads needing replacement before the fronts. I'm at 63k miles, and have replaced rears twice (the second set fairly recently, and front pads once.

I have also had some issues with moderate brake rotor warping. My guess is that I will need front pads fairly soon, and new rotors will probably be in order as well, as I am getting some vibration on braking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Related to this, sort of: can someone explain why rear brakes wear so much more than front brakes on this car. My life I have learned that the physics of brakes throws weight to the front of the car and front brakes work harder and wear faster with same or similar pad material as rears. My experience with a dozen other vehicles and one motorcycle confirms this. Now my dealer SE tells me that rears are the culprit. No explanation from him and I did not ask for one. Can someone hear use simple English to explain it to me?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Because one needs less braking power in the back, the rear brakes are smaller than the front ones. It just looks as in this case Volvo went a bit too far and is now driving the rear brakes at increased wear due to overload.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
My experience with my 2008 and 92K on the clock tells me your cars report is fairly typical. The tire wear is likely due to the type of tires the car is fitted with. I have had good luck with both the Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetrical and Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06. Look at the UTQG ratings on both of these tires and you'll see why. I live in Michigan and run the 18 inch size (had 19's for quite a while too). I preferred the GoodYears actually.

As jschinito states above I prefer the Centric high carbon rotors and the Akebono ceramic pads. I had another setup from Powerstop I was not all that happy with. You will have to find out if your car has 300mm or 320 mm front rotors. Our cars were build randomly with no rhyme or reason as to who got what so the only way to really tell is to measure them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,591 Posts
i'm no physicists either. but i have a few theories.

one, you and olstyle are right. front brakes are expected to do more work so front discs are larger than rear. but since the p1 platform is used for so many different cars, i think the same brake design applied to say a s40 versus the c70/v50 that have much more weight in the back, leads to us going through rear pads a bit quicker.

also agree they are trying to prevent nose dive on a generally heavy car. for many modern cars, additional rear braking comes from tech like abs/traction control that will apply the rear brakes more often than before these technologies, with more rear braking to keep that downward pressure on the rear tires so the car doesn't pitch too much forward that will allow the rears to get so unweighted to slide.

Related to this, sort of: can someone explain why rear brakes wear so much more than front brakes on this car. My life I have learned that the physics of brakes throws weight to the front of the car and front brakes work harder and wear faster with same or similar pad material as rears. My experience with a dozen other vehicles and one motorcycle confirms this. Now my dealer SE tells me that rears are the culprit. No explanation from him and I did not ask for one. Can someone hear use simple English to explain it to me?
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top