Certified By Volvo Factory Warranty
Username
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
    Results 1 to 35 of 41
    1. #1
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2019
      Posts
      12

      Certified By Volvo Factory Warranty

      Is this warranty any good and how come some dealers have it standard on some of their pre owned cars and some don't? Should I prioritize a used volvo with this warranty over one without?
      White 2012 S60 T5 Base (45k miles)

    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. #2
      Global Moderator GrecianVolvo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2001
      Location
      Southern California
      Posts
      38,982
      Quote Originally Posted by jjw220 View Post
      Is this warranty any good and how come some dealers have it standard on some of their pre owned cars and some don't? Should I prioritize a used volvo with this warranty over one without?
      It's an extremely comprehensive warranty (5 yrs/unlimited miles).

      Some retailers certify a large % of their pre-owned inventory, some choose not to.

      If you are interested in getting a Certified Volvo (this month, the promotional APR is 1.99% and you also get a 1-yr complimentary Volvo On Call subscription, on top of any remaining time left) I would recommend looking for a retailer that sells Certified Volvos --> https://cpo.volvocars.us/enus/vehicle-search
      2001 Volvo V70 T5 M SR, Classic Red/Graphite Lthr, TME Stage II ECU, 3" Downpipe w/ Cat-back exhaust from MTE, Volvo Roadholding & Lowering Kit w/ Nivomats, 17" PEGASUS, Rear Spoiler, Dolby Surround Sound
      2019 V90 Cross Country Osmium Grey metallic w/ Charcoal L, Advance, Retractable Tow Hitch, Polestar, 19" wheels
      2019 S60 T6 AWD Inscription Black w/ Maroon/Brown L, Advanced, Heated Seats/Steering, Charcoal Headliner, Park Assist Pilot, 4C, Ext Styling Kit, 19" wheels, Polestar

    4. #3
      Senior Member Wayne T5's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      Russell Twp, OH
      Posts
      10,767
      Quote Originally Posted by jjw220 View Post
      Is this warranty any good and how come some dealers have it standard on some of their pre owned cars and some don't? Should I prioritize a used volvo with this warranty over one without?
      You will certainly pay a premium for one that has a warranty because it costs the dealer something to offer that warranty on a used car. It's up to you if the added cost makes sense for one year of additional coverage over the standard new car warranty. I've read here that it can be extended past 5 years but I don't know how much that costs. And like all warranties, make sure you read the fine print as there are some things that aren't covered.
      Past: '94 854, '99 S70 T5 SE, '99 S70 GLT, '04 S60R M, '12 S60 T5, '13 S60 T5, '15 S60 RD, '05 V70R GT
      Present: '95 854 T-5R, '06 XC70, '15.5 XC60 T6, '16 V60 P*

    5. Remove Advertisements
      SwedeSpeed.com
      Advertisements
       

    6. #4
      Member Veefifty T5AWD's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Location
      Lakes Region NH
      Posts
      6,812
      It used to be one of the best at 7 years/100k - now it's less than average with just 5 years. When Volvo changed their CPO terms I lost a lot of enthusiasm for the brand and sticking with it.
      Logan

      2015 S60 T6 AWD R-Design Polestar
      2008 S40 2.4i - hers
      2013 C30 Polestar Limited Edition #87/250 - (former) | 2005 V50 T5 AWD (former) | 1995 Yellow 850 T-5R (former)

    7. #5
      Quote Originally Posted by jjw220 View Post
      Is this warranty any good and how come some dealers have it standard on some of their pre owned cars and some don't? Should I prioritize a used volvo with this warranty over one without?
      What Veefifty T5AWD said.... and to make matters worse.. the 5 Years / Unlimited starts from In Service Date. So let's say you're looking at a 2018 CPO. The car was manufactured June 2017. It was put into service January 2018.

      So you've lost 23 months (Jan 18 - Nov 19) of the warranty. And so what you get to enjoy is 37 Months / Unlimited Miles......And yes the CPO is pretty comprehensive.

      Old warranty use to be 7 years or 100K....Same model as above. But since you lost a percentage of the warranty beginning with the in service date, it was more like 5 or 6 years which was plenty of leeway with 100K miles.

    8. #6
      Quote Originally Posted by Wayne T5 View Post
      You will certainly pay a premium for one that has a warranty because it costs the dealer something to offer that warranty on a used car. It's up to you if the added cost makes sense for one year of additional coverage over the standard new car warranty. I've read here that it can be extended past 5 years but I don't know how much that costs. And like all warranties, make sure you read the fine print as there are some things that aren't covered.
      CPO covers pretty much everything....

      VIP Extended warranties exclude consumption issues. But OP would only be affected if he were picking up a 15.5 or 16.

    9. #7
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2018
      Location
      Lewisberry Penn
      Posts
      287
      I wouldn't buy a late model car of any brand without it being certified. I'm also thrilled Volvo changed their warranty coverage to 5 years unlimited. 7 year 100k was fine but it was one size fits all and so not everyone got the same gain. Additionally there was a higher dealer cost (which of course gets passed on to the customer) for us to add that to a dealer than the 5 year unlimited.

      5 years unlimited miles makes the loaner cars excellent values. I sell many of these cars to business professionals who normally were buying brand new cars and then adding warranty. They put on 20-40k per year. In 4 years they were trading in cars with 160k miles, and the last part was rarely under warranty so their fingers were just crossed. Now they get the regular CPO wrap and put on as many miles as they want and still trade in. They have lower upfront costs with an ex loaner car and no need to buy additional warranty and lower risks for repairs over their ownership. Very smart business option.

      Another batch of people is folks who keep their Volvo's forever. There are lots of these folks. I can go 10 years unlimited miles or 10 years 100k. You can do single year intervals but its hardly any price difference. You can select $0 or $100 deductible to adjust the cost. The costs of these extensions are significantly less than any other warranty I've ever sold. Much better value than adding warranty to a new car. And much longer coverage than the 7 year 100k. If memory serves me right, you could extend that out some and not too many more miles... 120k maybe? It's wasn't an overly impressive offer.

      If you were that person that 7 year 100k was perfect, the $0 deductible cost is within a few hundred dollars of what it was before when it was the standard and only option. Volvo has also since increased the requirements of what a certified car must be, such as OEM tires rather than just cheap round and black, so they continue to be better than just used cars. The percentage of the market better served with a better value is very significant. It's a much more flexibility system with better value for the vast majority.

      As for why some dealers do more than others... in part its marketing and advertising. You can advertise a lower price when they aren't certified. If a customer wants them certified the you can bump up the price. I thought Volvo was cracking down on that some but we didn't really fall into that camp so IDK. The one time we would leave a car open is if it was right near the cut off time wise. If a customer didn't want a CPO extension it would be silly to pay all the money for a few months of coverage as that cost has to get passed on. But like I mentioned, it's much less expensive to add a warranty to a CPO car than otherwise... So we could leave it up to the customer, less expensive car with little remaining warranty, or a bit more for full coverage for 5 more years.

      It is an exclusive warranty, which is good. Mostly wear items are not covered and weather seals glass, etc. Solar panels are also specifically mentioned for some reason. There is also an exclusion for correcting oil consumption or worn rings unless mechanical failure has occurred. You're covered from failure, and you might take that as a good time to trade in for a new one! The warranty is transferable as well.

    10. #8
      Member Veefifty T5AWD's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Location
      Lakes Region NH
      Posts
      6,812
      Quote Originally Posted by DFrantz View Post
      There is also an exclusion for correcting oil consumption or worn rings unless mechanical failure has occurred. You're covered from failure, and you might take that as a good time to trade in for a new one! The warranty is transferable as well.
      They are excluding one of their biggest issues?? Wow, there's another reason to walk away from the brand.
      Logan

      2015 S60 T6 AWD R-Design Polestar
      2008 S40 2.4i - hers
      2013 C30 Polestar Limited Edition #87/250 - (former) | 2005 V50 T5 AWD (former) | 1995 Yellow 850 T-5R (former)

    11. #9
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2018
      Location
      Lewisberry Penn
      Posts
      287
      Quote Originally Posted by Veefifty T5AWD View Post
      They are excluding one of their biggest issues?? Wow, there's another reason to walk away from the brand.
      A quart of oil doesn't cost all that much. If you go back to a 5k oil change interval you probably wouldn't know it had a consumption problem in the first place for many reported issues. Rings are a wear item in reality, they see a good bit of movement in their first 100k... If the motor were to fail even after you added oil, the warranty would still cover it. View oil as a consumable and then who cares?

      I live on a farm and most of my equipment is older than myself with high hours. I could buy new stuff or I could keep putting another quart of oil in. Oil is cheaper than the repair, and so long as I add it, no further repair is needed.

    12. #10
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2018
      Location
      Lewisberry Penn
      Posts
      287
      FWIW... I would be fine if we all went back to the OV4.. I'm a simple guy when it comes to cars. But if you take an academic perspective to why new cars burn more oil it's not really something to be all that concerned about.

      The market dictates in two primary ways. First the obvious of cars being sold... but 2nd the way people vote for different environmental requirements. In general the market demands new technology in their cars, more space, safer in accidents, cleaner engines, and more power. Technology, size and safety mean greater weight and lower performance and fuel economy. Cleaner engines and more power can in part go hand in hand regarding improved efficiency for each drop of fuel used, but if we could be satisfied with the performance of a 240 I think we'd be pretty amazed with what we could do with fuel economy. But we have 316 hp coming out of a 2.0 today getting better economy than we could before. One of the ways to improve efficiency is rings that aren't as tight and in turn, can let more oil slip by in exchange for lower friction. The market gets everything else it wants but you have to add more oil than you did in a car 20 years ago. It's not a bad payoff, and frankly I would love to see more people under the hoods of their cars, but I've been a car guy for a long time.

    13. #11
      Senior Member Wayne T5's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      Russell Twp, OH
      Posts
      10,767
      Quote Originally Posted by DFrantz View Post
      A quart of oil doesn't cost all that much. If you go back to a 5k oil change interval you probably wouldn't know it had a consumption problem in the first place for many reported issues. Rings are a wear item in reality, they see a good bit of movement in their first 100k... If the motor were to fail even after you added oil, the warranty would still cover it. View oil as a consumable and then who cares?

      I live on a farm and most of my equipment is older than myself with high hours. I could buy new stuff or I could keep putting another quart of oil in. Oil is cheaper than the repair, and so long as I add it, no further repair is needed.
      This is confusing and I appreciate you bringing it up.

      So if my oil consumption increases to a quart every 1,000 miles and no mechanical failure has occurred would that be covered?
      Past: '94 854, '99 S70 T5 SE, '99 S70 GLT, '04 S60R M, '12 S60 T5, '13 S60 T5, '15 S60 RD, '05 V70R GT
      Present: '95 854 T-5R, '06 XC70, '15.5 XC60 T6, '16 V60 P*

    14. #12
      Member Veefifty T5AWD's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Location
      Lakes Region NH
      Posts
      6,812
      Quote Originally Posted by DFrantz View Post
      A quart of oil doesn't cost all that much. If you go back to a 5k oil change interval you probably wouldn't know it had a consumption problem in the first place for many reported issues. Rings are a wear item in reality, they see a good bit of movement in their first 100k... If the motor were to fail even after you added oil, the warranty would still cover it. View oil as a consumable and then who cares?

      I live on a farm and most of my equipment is older than myself with high hours. I could buy new stuff or I could keep putting another quart of oil in. Oil is cheaper than the repair, and so long as I add it, no further repair is needed.
      I certainly don't disagree with this, however, it seems that a lot of the oil consumption issues posted on the forum are much greater than 1 qt. every 5k miles. Like Wayne T5, I'd like to know how Volvo handles these scenarios in terms of the CPO.
      Logan

      2015 S60 T6 AWD R-Design Polestar
      2008 S40 2.4i - hers
      2013 C30 Polestar Limited Edition #87/250 - (former) | 2005 V50 T5 AWD (former) | 1995 Yellow 850 T-5R (former)

    15. #13
      Quote Originally Posted by DFrantz View Post
      I wouldn't buy a late model car of any brand without it being certified. I'm also thrilled Volvo changed their warranty coverage to 5 years unlimited. 7 year 100k was fine but it was one size fits all and so not everyone got the same gain. Additionally there was a higher dealer cost (which of course gets passed on to the customer) for us to add that to a dealer than the 5 year unlimited.

      5 years unlimited miles makes the loaner cars excellent values. I sell many of these cars to business professionals who normally were buying brand new cars and then adding warranty. They put on 20-40k per year. In 4 years they were trading in cars with 160k miles, and the last part was rarely under warranty so their fingers were just crossed. Now they get the regular CPO wrap and put on as many miles as they want and still trade in. They have lower upfront costs with an ex loaner car and no need to buy additional warranty and lower risks for repairs over their ownership. Very smart business option.
      So a small segment of the population that drives like road warriors benefits from the change. Customer to business ratio, I would guess customers drive the large majority of sales. Meaning the average person dislikes the model change. Especially since the CPO costs money and the VIP warranties even more. Making Volvo the beneficiary and not the consumer. And to make matters worse, the VIP warranties exclude oil consumption. Meaning that if these later model cars are found to have the issue down the road (similar to the 15.5 and 16s), the warranty is worthless.

      Quote Originally Posted by DFrantz View Post
      Another batch of people is folks who keep their Volvo's forever. There are lots of these folks. I can go 10 years unlimited miles or 10 years 100k. You can do single year intervals but its hardly any price difference. You can select $0 or $100 deductible to adjust the cost. The costs of these extensions are significantly less than any other warranty I've ever sold. Much better value than adding warranty to a new car. And much longer coverage than the 7 year 100k. If memory serves me right, you could extend that out some and not too many more miles... 120k maybe? It's wasn't an overly impressive offer.
      Except the 7 yr / 100K covered everything. These new VIP warranties are FAR MORE expensive than the 7 yr / 100K. I paid $1600 extra for my CPO. Good luck finding a similar plan. New ones exclude oil consumption. An issue my 15.5 HAS NOT experienced, but does fall into the affected range.

      Quote Originally Posted by DFrantz View Post
      If you were that person that 7 year 100k was perfect, the $0 deductible cost is within a few hundred dollars of what it was before when it was the standard and only option. Volvo has also since increased the requirements of what a certified car must be, such as OEM tires rather than just cheap round and black, so they continue to be better than just used cars. The percentage of the market better served with a better value is very significant. It's a much more flexibility system with better value for the vast majority.
      True salesman.....

      As for why some dealers do more than others... in part its marketing and advertising. You can advertise a lower price when they aren't certified. If a customer wants them certified the you can bump up the price. I thought Volvo was cracking down on that some but we didn't really fall into that camp so IDK. The one time we would leave a car open is if it was right near the cut off time wise. If a customer didn't want a CPO extension it would be silly to pay all the money for a few months of coverage as that cost has to get passed on. But like I mentioned, it's much less expensive to add a warranty to a CPO car than otherwise... So we could leave it up to the customer, less expensive car with little remaining warranty, or a bit more for full coverage for 5 more years.

      It is an exclusive warranty, which is good. Mostly wear items are not covered and weather seals glass, etc. Solar panels are also specifically mentioned for some reason. There is also an exclusion for correcting oil consumption or worn rings unless mechanical failure has occurred. You're covered from failure, and you might take that as a good time to trade in for a new one! The warranty is transferable as well.[/QUOTE]

    16. #14
      Quote Originally Posted by DFrantz View Post
      A quart of oil doesn't cost all that much. If you go back to a 5k oil change interval you probably wouldn't know it had a consumption problem in the first place for many reported issues. Rings are a wear item in reality, they see a good bit of movement in their first 100k... If the motor were to fail even after you added oil, the warranty would still cover it. View oil as a consumable and then who cares?

      I live on a farm and most of my equipment is older than myself with high hours. I could buy new stuff or I could keep putting another quart of oil in. Oil is cheaper than the repair, and so long as I add it, no further repair is needed.
      Because oil consumption issues magically improve over time.....So a car that has burning a quart every few thousand miles early in its life will somehow improve as time moves on

      Ya....No....That car will only become more and more of a problem until either it's eating so much oil the pistons gunk up or the engine needs replaced. A La that new warranty sucks because the consumer isn't covered.

    17. #15
      Quote Originally Posted by Wayne T5 View Post
      This is confusing and I appreciate you bringing it up.

      So if my oil consumption increases to a quart every 1,000 miles and no mechanical failure has occurred would that be covered?
      Chances are the engine will limp along, getting worse, but not fail. I have a 90s Toyota Corolla that is now burning 2 quarts every 100-200 miles. The thing started out at 1000 then 500 and now burns oil like it's free. The engine still runs, but the piston rings are clearly shot. An issue with late 90 models Corollas (bad piston rings).

      This car is now at 205,000 mile... Point I'm making, that unless the person runs engine without oil, it probably won't fail. And if it is run without oil and fails, Volvo is going to blame the consumer. Volvo will absolutely not pay for an engine / new pistons after 100K. Making those VIP warranties toilet paper for oil consumption.

      Luckily, only the 15.5 and 16s are known candidates. But I imagine the issue could reappear in later models as time progresses.

    18. #16
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2018
      Location
      Lewisberry Penn
      Posts
      287
      Quote Originally Posted by Wayne T5 View Post
      This is confusing and I appreciate you bringing it up.

      So if my oil consumption increases to a quart every 1,000 miles and no mechanical failure has occurred would that be covered?
      It would not. I'm not sure if Volvo has an official figure, but a quart per thousand wouldn't be out of line and no mechanical repair would be warranted.

      Lets say a quart is $10.... and a motor is $10,000.... You could go through a million miles of oil consumption before you pay for the engine. If YOU were the one paying for it, which would you choose? It's not affecting the drivability of the car. You can check the oil from the dash board. You can add oil when you go and keep a quart with the spare tire. Obviously it'd be better if you didn't have to do this, but it accomplishes the other requirements best currently and is far from a Volvo exclusive "issue". I understand we didn't have to add a quart of oil every 1000 miles 20 years ago, but it's simply not something I find reason to get excited about after doing enough reading to understand the reasoning behind it.

      Ironically, I think the market as a whole would be more satisfied if everyone went back to a 5k interval. Most cars aren't using a quart per 1k, but a quart per 5k is pretty common. Most folks would never know the oil consumption has gone up in modern engineering. They'd rather pay $100 for a scheduled oil change than $10 in oil they have to add themselves with the thought that they have a problem. To me this isn't rational... but then again, neither is the SUV =-D

    19. #17
      Quote Originally Posted by DFrantz View Post
      It would not. I'm not sure if Volvo has an official figure, but a quart per thousand wouldn't be out of line and no mechanical repair would be warranted.

      Lets say a quart is $10.... and a motor is $10,000.... You could go through a million miles of oil consumption before you pay for the engine. If YOU were the one paying for it, which would you choose? It's not affecting the drivability of the car. You can check the oil from the dash board. You can add oil when you go and keep a quart with the spare tire. Obviously it'd be better if you didn't have to do this, but it accomplishes the other requirements best currently and is far from a Volvo exclusive "issue". I understand we didn't have to add a quart of oil every 1000 miles 20 years ago, but it's simply not something I find reason to get excited about after doing enough reading to understand the reasoning behind it.

      Ironically, I think the market as a whole would be more satisfied if everyone went back to a 5k interval. Most cars aren't using a quart per 1k, but a quart per 5k is pretty common. Most folks would never know the oil consumption has gone up in modern engineering. They'd rather pay $100 for a scheduled oil change than $10 in oil they have to add themselves with the thought that they have a problem. To me this isn't rational... but then again, neither is the SUV =-D
      Again, you gloss over the issue without admitting what's already known. The 15.5 and 16 have piston ring issues. And consumption here gets worse and worse. Will the 17s, 18,s 19s or 20s ever see a repeat? Right now, there's no complaints, and so we can assume the issue of bad rings has been resolved.

      But that doesn't mean a design flaw can't reappear or won't show up later down the road after wear and tear.

      Oil consumption issues get worse over time...Telling the customer to "add oil" is a band aid, the same with going back to 5k oil changes.

    20. #18
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2018
      Location
      Lewisberry Penn
      Posts
      287
      Actually I gave several scenarios where people get a better situation. It's anecdotal, but my pool of people is significantly greater than yours I would imagine, and the vast majority of folks I deal with are getting a better deal with the new warranty vs the old. Even if we're just dealing with the folks you picked... the road warriors... don't you think Volvo is gonna be making more money with them than the grandma who keeps a car for 15 years and puts 30k on it? Appealing to high mile business folks with money sorta makes sense.

      You've also completely ignored my statement as to the dealer cost of the warranty. So you may have seen a $1600 charge to get out to 7 years, but a chunk of that used to get added directly to the cost of the vehicle too. The amount Volvo charges the dealer for the CPO of the current warranty is less than it was before. And many cars sold under the warranty would have hit 100k prior to hitting 7 years. Again, I acknowledged that there was a small segment that the cost went up, but it was by under $1000. For most every other transaction, the actual cost went down or the coverage was greatly extended for the same cost. The new warranty covers the same everything the old one did. They did get more specific oil consumption, though I can't say for sure the old one would have covered it either as it's considered "normal". If the pistons gunk up and fails the motor or the motor needs replaced for some other reason then the motor WOULD be covered. The moment there is a breakdown you'd be covered. But they are specifying that consumption is not a breakdown.

      The specific text I have is "The correction of oil consumption, repair of worn rings, or any repairs for reduction in engine efficiency that must be performed on your vehicle when a mechanical breakdown has not occurred"
      That exclusion does not exclude motor failure... ONLY oil consumption and reduction in efficiency.

      Not trying to get in a fight here or be a salesman. I'm just a car guy that makes a living selling cars, which does mean I probably invest a little more of my time than most in the automotive world. I like to understand the products I sell and of course I need to be able to determine the angle to express their value. I am here to learn from the mass consumer base and to share my experience and perspective to help make the buying and ownership process a greater joy. I'm not sure how ignoring a positive perspective to counter a negative one expressed is doing anyone harm. Most folks like to know multiple angles to understand the full perspective. I understand that oil consumption is an extra hassle. But there is a reason for it happening, and it's more common on any modern engine. I think attacking it as some sort of anti Volvo claim is either ignorant or disingenuous.

      And apologies.. I'm a full post behind in my responses here, so the continuity of this thread is a bit off. I'll wait for an additional response before adding, and use the time to get a few deals put together.
      Last edited by DFrantz; 12-03-2019 at 12:49 PM.

    21. #19
      Senior Member Wayne T5's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      Russell Twp, OH
      Posts
      10,767
      Thank you for responding. I can appreciate Volvo's perspective on the subject. Not sure that I'm totally on board but it's not just a Volvo thing, I realize that.
      Past: '94 854, '99 S70 T5 SE, '99 S70 GLT, '04 S60R M, '12 S60 T5, '13 S60 T5, '15 S60 RD, '05 V70R GT
      Present: '95 854 T-5R, '06 XC70, '15.5 XC60 T6, '16 V60 P*

    22. #20
      Quote Originally Posted by Wayne T5 View Post
      Thank you for responding. I can appreciate Volvo's perspective on the subject. Not sure that I'm totally on board but it's not just a Volvo thing, I realize that.
      Very True. Tons of manufacturers (AUDI, BMW, etc) have all been sued over this issue.

    23. #21
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2018
      Location
      Lewisberry Penn
      Posts
      287
      My perspective shouldn't be thought of as Volvo's... It's not even my dealerships. I'm just a sales guy. Dealerships pedal whatever the manufacturers produce, but I'm not a Volvo employee by any means and my cool Volvo jacket I bought from Volvo trucks. I don't want you to think I'm any sort of official voice, I'm far from it.

      You can call it design flaw or a perspective flaw. I don't think the engineers didn't know they would burn more oil. I think they calculated that it was the best way to make a motor to meet the market needs of performance, cost, and greenness. IMO it's no different than the "design flaw" of a 2 stroke motor needing oil added to the fuel... It's different and there isn't really a good way to promote it. I mean, who wants to be the manufacturer to advertise that burning oil is the new norm. It's a bit counter intuitive, but that doesn't make it outright wrong.

      I checked into the suits... I found one with BMW that was settled (aka never actually proven)... you know what they got?

      "Under the terms of the proposed BMW engine defect settlement, Class Members are entitled to a free battery and $75 per oil service for up to three future oil changes. They will also be provided with a voucher worth $1,000 to $1,500 off a new BMW vehicle."

      Wow!!!! Huge settlement and compensation was agreed to there... You know what that tells me? No real problem at all. They didn't have much to go to bat with to accept $500 in parts and a coupon to keep buying more cars..... That's a token settlement there. If there are better examples please share em, I just did a lazy google search and read the first one. https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-...ction-lawsuit/

    24. #22
      Junior Member Ride S40T's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2006
      Location
      OK
      Posts
      981
      Quote Originally Posted by jjw220 View Post
      Is this warranty any good and how come some dealers have it standard on some of their pre owned cars and some don't? Should I prioritize a used volvo with this warranty over one without?
      Short answer is "yes" on the CPO. It's worth it. Although the terms have changed, the items covered were expanded so in my view it's a wash. Still worth it.

      Just picked up a CPO V60 and we had nearly 4 years and unlimited miles, actually better than the new car warranty. Plus got an extra year of OnCall. Score.

      And yes, CPOs are usually a little more but we paid very little for it, about 60% of what it sold for new. Internet be thy friend. Bought it via text only. Never spoke to a human until we picked it up. Busy busy world we live in, eh?
      Hers: 2013 C30 T5 / Polestar Limited Edition / 6M / #147 of 250 / Rebel Blue
      His: 2018 V60 T5 Dynamic / Passion Red / Vision & Tech Pkgs
      Son's: 2005 S40 T5 / Passion Red / Dynamic Sport / IPD Stuff (He will never part with)
      Son's: 2018 V60CC / Denim Blue / Vision Pkg
      In the past: 2016 XC90RD / 2015 S60RD / 2012 S60 T5 - Loved them all!

    25. #23
      Member Veefifty T5AWD's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Location
      Lakes Region NH
      Posts
      6,812
      Quote Originally Posted by Ride S40T View Post
      Although the terms have changed, the items covered were expanded so in my view it's a wash.
      Are you sure? I have had the original CPO twice now, and everything was covered. I've seen a few posts from people who have the new CPO, and it seems many items are no longer covered.
      Logan

      2015 S60 T6 AWD R-Design Polestar
      2008 S40 2.4i - hers
      2013 C30 Polestar Limited Edition #87/250 - (former) | 2005 V50 T5 AWD (former) | 1995 Yellow 850 T-5R (former)

    26. #24
      Junior Member Ride S40T's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2006
      Location
      OK
      Posts
      981
      Quote Originally Posted by Veefifty T5AWD View Post
      Are you sure? I have had the original CPO twice now, and everything was covered. I've seen a few posts from people who have the new CPO, and it seems many items are no longer covered.
      I'll default to Grecian for the exact items but that's what I got from the dealer (yes, I know they were "selling" me a car, too). With this one I believe only wear items are excluded and everything else is covered.

      According to Volvo's site, both warranties are "exclusionary" so maybe the offer of "unlimited miles" was a bit of a carrot? That extra 2 years of coverage may have been costing Volvo too much $$? Most changes are made to save companies money, just sayin'.

      Tend to look at it this way...not too many people will hit 100k in 5 years from an "in service date" so in terms of coverage, having a shorter timeframe might be better to save Volvo some major $$. I know there's a few folks on this forum that rack up 20-30K a year, likely the exception.

      All that said, this is my second CPO with two different Makes and I don't regret either purchase. Did they wrap it into the price of the car? Absolutely, and they showed me the items they addressed in order to certify it. That said, I still paid right at or less than the average market price according to True Car and Edmonds - and I have a little more coverage.
      Hers: 2013 C30 T5 / Polestar Limited Edition / 6M / #147 of 250 / Rebel Blue
      His: 2018 V60 T5 Dynamic / Passion Red / Vision & Tech Pkgs
      Son's: 2005 S40 T5 / Passion Red / Dynamic Sport / IPD Stuff (He will never part with)
      Son's: 2018 V60CC / Denim Blue / Vision Pkg
      In the past: 2016 XC90RD / 2015 S60RD / 2012 S60 T5 - Loved them all!

    27. #25
      Quote Originally Posted by Ride S40T View Post
      I'll default to Grecian for the exact items but that's what I got from the dealer (yes, I know they were "selling" me a car, too). With this one I believe only wear items are excluded and everything else is covered.

      According to Volvo's site, both warranties are "exclusionary" so maybe the offer of "unlimited miles" was a bit of a carrot? That extra 2 years of coverage may have been costing Volvo too much $$? Most changes are made to save companies money, just sayin'.

      Tend to look at it this way...not too many people will hit 100k in 5 years from an "in service date" so in terms of coverage, having a shorter timeframe might be better to save Volvo some major $$. I know there's a few folks on this forum that rack up 20-30K a year, likely the exception.

      All that said, this is my second CPO with two different Makes and I don't regret either purchase. Did they wrap it into the price of the car? Absolutely, and they showed me the items they addressed in order to certify it. That said, I still paid right at or less than the average market price according to True Car and Edmonds - and I have a little more coverage.
      You hit the nail on the head. Most people will drive around 15,000 miles with upper cusp hitting 18,000. Even if the car had 1 year of in service at time of sale, it'd take nearly 6 years to hit 100K at 18,000 miles a year. Meaning that 95% of drivers would be just fine with said allotment. Those road warriors championing the change are the 5% exception. So for them the unlimited miles is great. They probably drive the hell out of their car for business purposes. The other 95% don't feel it's an added value, but most probably don't even know Volvo had a 7 yr / 100K at this point. That being said, the old CPO was superior, hands down.

    28. #26
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Jan 2019
      Location
      North Carolina, USA
      Posts
      52
      Quote Originally Posted by DFrantz View Post

      You can call it design flaw or a perspective flaw. I don't think the engineers didn't know they would burn more oil. I think they calculated that it was the best way to make a motor to meet the market needs of performance, cost, and greenness. IMO it's no different than the "design flaw" of a 2 stroke motor needing oil added to the fuel...
      As an engineer, I 100% disagree. A 2-stroke engine requires oil in the fuel for lubrication. It is a primary design requirement for that engine to function. A 2-stroke engine, by design, must have some type of forced induction in order to work. The best way to achieve that in the simplest design is to use the crankcase volume (bottom side of the piston) to force the intake charge into the cylinder. All of the air/fuel burned in a small 2-stroke engine must first pass through the crankcase, before being pushed into the cylinder. This design means there can be no open bath of lubricating oil in the crankcase. So in order to lubricate the bottom end, there must be oil either injected or carried with the air/fuel charge. The benefits of a 2-stroke (high power to weight, simple, less expensive to produce) easily justify this trade-off in certain applications such as chainsaws, string trimmers, leaf blowers, etc.

      I personally do not believe the oil being consumed in these 4 stroke car engines is by design. It is not serving some specific purpose to lubricate internal parts in a sacrificial way. High oil consumption is not required for a 4 stroke engine to function reliably and long term. If time has proven anything, it is that the oil consumption is actually hurting long term performance and life of the engine by gumming up the rings and valves with cooked oil.

      Even if the engineers were aware that their design was consuming oil at a high rate, and decided that it is the best they can do and to just call it normal, it is still a poor design IMO. It is a crap trade-off to have an engine that runs the risk of running low on oil over the prescribed service interval, just to (as you assert) gain a slight advantage in fuel economy due to lower friction rings. No decent engineer would sign off on that. If it really was by design, they would have either specified a shorter service interval, or incorporated some sort of oil reserve tank to ensure the sump is never at risk of running dry.

    29. #27
      Junior Member RootDKJ's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2010
      Location
      North Jersey
      Posts
      658
      I just know MyVolvoS60 will disagree with me, but I love the new CPO. I'm one of the "high milage with money" drivers that DFrantz mentions above. I drive about 400-500 miles a month for business for which I'm reimbursed for at a rate of $0.58/mile. This might actually increase for 2020. I drive another 1,000 to 2,000 a month during ski season (Dec-April). All told, I'm 18,000 to 21,000 miles a year. I'm guessing I'll keep my CPO for 7 to 8 years but it will really depend on when the XC60 is refreshed again and then start hunting for a new CPO and start the cycle over again.

      Being such a high milage driver, if oil consumption/bad rings/etc were to develop on my CPO, it will probably occur during the original warranty period.
      2019 Bursting Blue XC60 R-Design T8
      | 21" Wheels | Exterior Style Kit | Advanced | 4C Air | B & W | CPO 10yr/Unlimited |
      2010 Maple Red XC60 T6 retired at 173,375 miles

    30. #28
      Quote Originally Posted by RootDKJ View Post
      I just know MyVolvoS60 will disagree with me, but I love the new CPO. I'm one of the "high milage with money" drivers that DFrantz mentions above. I drive about 400-500 miles a month for business for which I'm reimbursed for at a rate of $0.58/mile. This might actually increase for 2020. I drive another 1,000 to 2,000 a month during ski season (Dec-April). All told, I'm 18,000 to 21,000 miles a year. I'm guessing I'll keep my CPO for 7 to 8 years but it will really depend on when the XC60 is refreshed again and then start hunting for a new CPO and start the cycle over again.

      Being such a high milage driver, if oil consumption/bad rings/etc were to develop on my CPO, it will probably occur during the original warranty period.
      I don't disagree with you because you proved my point....

      Quote Originally Posted by RootDKJ View Post
      All told, I'm 18,000 to 21,000 miles a year.
      Math 101....

      at 18,000 miles per year it would take you almost 6 years to accumulate 100,000 Miles
      at 21,000 miles per year it would take you almost 5 years to accumulate 100,0000 Miles

      Both situations favor my argument of the NEW CPO being bad for consumers. As the NEW CPO is 5 Years beginning at the time vehicle was first put into service. Which usually knocks a year or so off that 5 year figure. Meaning, either scenario you presented would NOT exceed the 100K in the allotted time frame.

      Even in the most favorable of conditions, it would take you 4.76 years to reach 100K even at 21,000 miles per year. So just to break even on New vs. Old CPO, the vehicle couldn't have more than 3 months subtracted from its in service date.....Old CPO ---> Great New CPO.
      Last edited by MyVolvoS60; 12-09-2019 at 12:49 PM.

    31. #29
      Junior Member RootDKJ's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2010
      Location
      North Jersey
      Posts
      658
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      I don't disagree with you because you proved my point....



      Math 101....

      at 18,000 miles per year it would take you almost 6 years to accumulate 100,000 Miles
      at 21,000 miles per year it would take you almost 5 years to accumulate 100,0000 Miles

      Both situations favor my argument of the NEW CPO being bad for consumers. As the NEW CPO is 5 Years beginning at the time vehicle was first put into service. Which usually knocks a year or so off that 5 year figure. Meaning, either scenario you presented would NOT exceed the 100K in the allotted time frame.

      Even in the most favorable of conditions, it would take you 4.76 years to reach 100K even at 21,000 miles per year. So just to break even on New vs. Old CPO, the vehicle couldn't have more than 3 months subtracted from its in service date.....Old CPO ---> Great New CPO.
      But what if I decide to keep this car 9 or 10 years?
      2019 Bursting Blue XC60 R-Design T8
      | 21" Wheels | Exterior Style Kit | Advanced | 4C Air | B & W | CPO 10yr/Unlimited |
      2010 Maple Red XC60 T6 retired at 173,375 miles

    32. #30
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2018
      Location
      Lewisberry Penn
      Posts
      287
      Saying the new is "bad" is assuming the dealer cost is the same... it's not. Many folks don't keep cars out to 7 years.. so they had been paying for warranty time they were not using. Considering many of the people who DO keep a car to the 100k mark also keep it longer, than the ability to do 10 year and unlimited mile becomes very valuable as well. While the old warranty could be stretched to 120k, that would only give you coverage out to 7 or 8 years... leaving two full years uncovered, and in the time and mileage when it's most likely to be used. Also, the cost to extend is down significantly from the old system. So really, only the people who needed exactly 7 years and 100k are worse off, and really not by all that much.

      According the the US DOT the avg American drives 13476 per year... at 10 years old that's obviously 134760 and it's just under 7 years to hit 100k. I don't know the real numbers but I'd bet many folks who buy new are on the higher mile portion. Getting a 6 mo old loaner car with 9.5 years and unlimited miles for even a wash between discount and extending the warranty would probably be a pretty good deal for the consumer, and frankly, you can generally get it for less than that! Many (not all) used cars that were sold were high mile cars because again, lots of new car buyers put on miles. There is a butt for every seat and these folks too gain with unlimited miles. They can buy a less expensive higher mile car and not worry about the warranty as much. So again, your notion of 95% of people were better off doesn't old, as many of these folks ended up hitting miles ahead of time, but they couldn't all afford a 20k 2 year old car... while a 40 or 50k 2 year old car becomes more affordable with affordable peace of mind as well.

    33. #31
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2018
      Location
      Lewisberry Penn
      Posts
      287
      Quote Originally Posted by budleach View Post
      As an engineer, I 100% disagree. A 2-stroke engine requires oil in the fuel for lubrication. It is a primary design requirement for that engine to function. A 2-stroke engine, by design, must have some type of forced induction in order to work. The best way to achieve that in the simplest design is to use the crankcase volume (bottom side of the piston) to force the intake charge into the cylinder. All of the air/fuel burned in a small 2-stroke engine must first pass through the crankcase, before being pushed into the cylinder. This design means there can be no open bath of lubricating oil in the crankcase. So in order to lubricate the bottom end, there must be oil either injected or carried with the air/fuel charge. The benefits of a 2-stroke (high power to weight, simple, less expensive to produce) easily justify this trade-off in certain applications such as chainsaws, string trimmers, leaf blowers, etc.

      I personally do not believe the oil being consumed in these 4 stroke car engines is by design. It is not serving some specific purpose to lubricate internal parts in a sacrificial way. High oil consumption is not required for a 4 stroke engine to function reliably and long term. If time has proven anything, it is that the oil consumption is actually hurting long term performance and life of the engine by gumming up the rings and valves with cooked oil.

      Even if the engineers were aware that their design was consuming oil at a high rate, and decided that it is the best they can do and to just call it normal, it is still a poor design IMO. It is a crap trade-off to have an engine that runs the risk of running low on oil over the prescribed service interval, just to (as you assert) gain a slight advantage in fuel economy due to lower friction rings. No decent engineer would sign off on that. If it really was by design, they would have either specified a shorter service interval, or incorporated some sort of oil reserve tank to ensure the sump is never at risk of running dry.
      I'm not saying it was engineered to burn oil, I'm saying it was engineered known to burn oil as an acceptable cost for all other considered factors. Rings would be one of the easiest things to test because it's pretty much 100% use and 0% time that affects them. So test engines would have shown the wear and it was found acceptable. It's industry wide to meet market demands of power and fuel economy. Where it would become a problem is if the burning oil cause other failures... and again, those failures WOULD be covered by the warranty. If you think it's likely, than that certainly answers the OP question. Certified Volvo Warranties are a good investment if you're going to own the car into higher mileage.

      The 1895 Benton Harbor doesn't even have an oiling system to speak of. It seizes up ever few hundred yards. It's still with us 133 years later and is certainly out of warranty! You can keep anything running if you take care of it. Burning oil really doesn't strike me as a big deal at all.

    34. #32
      Quote Originally Posted by RootDKJ View Post
      But what if I decide to keep this car 9 or 10 years?
      ....You are out of warranty for years 6, 7.....As opposed to Old CPO which gave me 6, and year 7...

      Doesn't matter if you keep car 5 or 10 years, it has no relevance on the length of your warranty. And in fact, you'd be out of pocket to buy an extended warranty that EXCLUDES oil consumption, where as no such rider exists on the CPO. Meaning you lost year 6 and 7 coverage with LESS exclusions.

    35. #33
      Quote Originally Posted by DFrantz View Post
      Saying the new is "bad" is assuming the dealer cost is the same... it's not. Many folks don't keep cars out to 7 years.. so they had been paying for warranty time they were not using. Considering many of the people who DO keep a car to the 100k mark also keep it longer, than the ability to do 10 year and unlimited mile becomes very valuable as well. While the old warranty could be stretched to 120k, that would only give you coverage out to 7 or 8 years... leaving two full years uncovered, and in the time and mileage when it's most likely to be used. Also, the cost to extend is down significantly from the old system. So really, only the people who needed exactly 7 years and 100k are worse off, and really not by all that much.

      According the the US DOT the avg American drives 13476 per year... at 10 years old that's obviously 134760 and it's just under 7 years to hit 100k. I don't know the real numbers but I'd bet many folks who buy new are on the higher mile portion. Getting a 6 mo old loaner car with 9.5 years and unlimited miles for even a wash between discount and extending the warranty would probably be a pretty good deal for the consumer, and frankly, you can generally get it for less than that! Many (not all) used cars that were sold were high mile cars because again, lots of new car buyers put on miles. There is a butt for every seat and these folks too gain with unlimited miles. They can buy a less expensive higher mile car and not worry about the warranty as much. So again, your notion of 95% of people were better off doesn't old, as many of these folks ended up hitting miles ahead of time, but they couldn't all afford a 20k 2 year old car... while a 40 or 50k 2 year old car becomes more affordable with affordable peace of mind as well.
      Total nonsense argument. It's not like the CPO go cheaper when Volvo hacked off 2 years....And for almost ALL drivers, with a small minority being the exception, those 2 years mattered. To say chopping them was inconsequential because people don't keep cars 7 years is nonsense.

      Then why would Volvo have even bothered making a change if "no one kept their car"....

      Per 10 year / unlimited mileage... Yep.. Volvo sells a warranty + now makes more money by selling said warranty + excludes oil consumption. Something CPO does not.

      Bottom line.. Some bean counter in the back office made a decision that hurt Volvo's consumers and benefited Volvo. End of story.

    36. #34
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2018
      Location
      Lewisberry Penn
      Posts
      287
      It's not like the CPO go cheaper when Volvo hacked off 2 years
      Actually that's exactly what happened. The dealers are charged $895 for the current CPO and I think the old one was $1395... While that's not a customer facing figure, when it gets down to what we can sell a car for it's certainly a factor as the cost to add the warranty is lower now, and the customer facing extensions are less cost now too. I conceded that to make the 7 year 100k does cost a few hundred bucks more, but the consumer cost for most other situations is lower or previously wasn't even possible.

      The change is much more flexible. Not everyone keeps the car, and those that do can extend by year out to 10... and 100k or unlimited miles. Ownership costs is down with the new warranty. Frankly just because the old warranty didn't exclude oil consumption doesn't mean it was considered a repairable cost... it still wasn't mechanical failure, which is the requirement for a warranty claim. The newer wording really just makes it more clear for consumers.

      So to not make too much of a fool of myself, I checked with an old brochure for the old CPO... It doesn't specify consumption but it does say that repairs for the purpose of repairing compression (aka performance in the new lingo) would not be covered without mechanical breakdown. I don't believe consumption would not be repaired any more under the old program than the new unless mechanical failure has occurred. Mechanical failure is generally the condition for warranties to kick in.

    37. #35
      Quote Originally Posted by DFrantz View Post
      Actually that's exactly what happened. The dealers are charged $895 for the current CPO and I think the old one was $1395...
      Lol literally today a dealer - who told me the car was CPO so I drove almost 2 hours to check it out - and then told me three days after the fact it wasn't actually CPO... offered to split the "Dealer cost" of CPOing the vehicle of $1490... $745 on my end.

      hmmmmmmmmmm

    38. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Volvo Certified Warranty on a preowned XC60?
      By Greggt in forum General Volvo Discussions
      Replies: 2
      Last Post: 01-20-2014, 04:19 PM
    2. How I got screwed out of my Volvo certified pre-owned warranty
      By CRRC in forum General Volvo Discussions
      Replies: 10
      Last Post: 07-22-2008, 05:30 PM
    3. Replies: 1
      Last Post: 06-13-2008, 12:14 PM
    4. 2001 V70 T5, Volvo Certified Warranty
      By JJMAN in forum FWD & AWD Cars For Sale
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: 11-06-2004, 10:30 AM
    5. Certified XC90 or New XC90 with Volvo Extended Warranty - Yannis
      By JethroJackson in forum XC90 (2003 - 2014)
      Replies: 4
      Last Post: 09-02-2004, 08:50 PM