 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Volvo Cars / December 2006940 - which model to get?
Hi, all, and Happy Holidays! I am contemplating getting a 940 soon, somewhere in the 91-95 range. I was wondering if someone with experience here could shed some words of wisdom: which models are better (reliability first) and which are less desirable? GLE's? turbo's? SE's? Your input is greatly appreciated. Thanks! I like our 93' 940t....just get it checked out good 1st, and take care of it...they are nice, solid cars...we have aprox 270,000 miles on it..no major problems...... On Dec 25, 7:06 pm, sor...@yahoo.com wrote: > Hi, all, and Happy Holidays! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > desirable? GLE's? turbo's? SE's? Your input is greatly appreciated. > Thanks! >Hi, all, and Happy Holidays! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >desirable? GLE's? turbo's? SE's? Your input is greatly appreciated. >Thanks! Hi happy holidays too you to ;-) I own a 940 GLE '92. Great car, never let me down, even after 10 years crossing the alps with a speedboat behind her! (1.500 kg). Now over 220.000 km and now a minor oil leak. Fixing will not much trouble. Greetz, Chris We have a '91 940 turbo which has never gifen any problems --- very reliable and even though we have had several other Volvos since, we've decidied this one is a keeper. 145K mi. (just about broken in). > Hi, all, and Happy Holidays! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > desirable? GLE's? turbo's? SE's? Your input is greatly appreciated. > Thanks! > Hi, all, and Happy Holidays! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > desirable? GLE's? turbo's? SE's? Your input is greatly appreciated. > Thanks! I have a 1995 940 2.3 SE Turbo, and a family member has a 1996 940 2.3 GLE (also turbo but slightly lower power). I think they are all pretty much the same (no nasty V6s in the 900 range), the turbos have good power, even the lower pressure variants, than the normally aspirated but are a bit more sensitive to bad maintance. Turbos generally need refurbed after 100K miles, but might last as long as 150K miles, this is normally worth doing as the rest of the car should last a lifetime. SEs (Sports Edition) have the highest power, noted by a boost guage, and can be tweaked to T5R levels for no cost. Biggest problems are slight water leaks or no anti-freeze that are left unrepaired leading to severe corrosion and leaks or bigger leaks. This is quite common (as the cars can tolerate leaks for years), but ultimately leads to head skim/new gasket. Also recently I fix the above family members car for a stuck termostat and blocked breather caused by cooling system corrosion, had to skim the head. 2ndly but more rarely is lack of oil changes, they are not fussy cars but severe lack of oil changes or perhaps poor quality oil will leak to various problems, look out for sludge/crud build up on CAM and bearing caps visible through the oil filler cap. Oil pumps sieze up, bearings are damaged, seals leak, generally a complete stip and rebuild will the save the engine but it may still not have the same service life. Above family members car was a bad example of this, hopefully stable now after new oil pump, head skim/clean, cooling system overhaul. Earlier cars have unreliable fuel pump relays (can fail due to solder joints breaking), but I think this is fixed on or before 95 as the relay layout is different to the problem ones. Certainly hasn't been a problem in my car. Biggest difference between models is the estate and saloon, saloons seem to have multi-link rear suspension which I really don't like. Estates hold their value more strongly anyway and are just so useful (7 seats or just huge load carrying). -- Tony > I think they are all pretty much the same (no nasty V6s in the 900 range), > the turbos have good power, even the lower pressure variants, than the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lifetime. SEs (Sports Edition) have the highest power, noted by a boost > guage, and can be tweaked to T5R levels for no cost. I didn't think the turbo in our '85 765T would last long, because I couldn't convince my wife to avoid revving the engine on startup or to let it cool after coming off the freeway and before shutting it down. It is over 240K miles and 20 years and still going steady. Mike > Hi, all, and Happy Holidays! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > desirable? GLE's? turbo's? SE's? Your input is greatly appreciated. > Thanks! Drive a turbo and any thing else will be a poor second choice.Nice car with all the bugs out . > Drive a turbo and any thing else will be a poor second choice.Nice car > with all the bugs out . Yes, but are they less reliable because of the turbo? I read in a post around here that usually turbos need replaced around 150K mi. True? >>Drive a turbo and any thing else will be a poor second choice.Nice car >>with all the bugs out . > > Yes, but are they less reliable because of the turbo? I read in a post > around here that usually turbos need replaced around 150K mi. True? Turbos require a bit more careful maintenance, but if you keep up on the oil changes they should be fine. The old oil cooled turbos usually needed replacing around 150K but after '86 they were water cooled and last much longer. I have 282K on the original turbo in mine and these days you can get a new turbo relatively cheaply on ebay or have it rebuilt. I agree that once you drive a turbo, you won't want anything else. >> Drive a turbo and any thing else will be a poor second choice.Nice car >> with all the bugs out . > > Yes, but are they less reliable because of the turbo? I read in a post > around here that usually turbos need replaced around 150K mi. True? arh but the joy of the turbo is to be experienced and the cartridge is not so bad as well We use synthetic oil so the life of the Turbo is extended somewhat. >> Hi, all, and Happy Holidays! >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Drive a turbo and any thing else will be a poor second choice.Nice car > with all the bugs out . Inside my engine is like a sewing machine no crud at all thanks to synthetic oil which is best for the turbo as well .When you turn the engine ff the turbo spins on destroying the dino oil making it gritty.Synthetic oil was developed for Jet engines as dino oil couldn't do the job . > Synthetic oil was developed for Jet engines as dino oil couldn't > do the job . Most cars don't use jet engines. The decision to use synthetic oils should be based on the expected use of the oil. Since synthetics cost at least twice as much as mineral oil-based products, there is a tendency on the part of the operator to expect them to outperform in all circumstances. In a piston engine aircraft environment, however, the favorable properties of synthetic oils are marginal. Supporters of synthetic oils have basically two main claims: one, they increase time between oil changes and second, they improve startability at extreme low temperatures. Synthetic oils will become contaminated just as quickly as mineral oil in a piston aircraft engine and synthetics do not show any appreciable difference in wear levels. OEMs do not distinguish between synthetics and mineral-based products for oil change recommendations. Also, for piston-powered aircraft, any possible low temperature benefit to a synthetic oil is irrelevant because piston aircraft started in temperatures of 20F or below must be pre-heated. With regard to extremely high-temperature operation, very few, if any, piston-powered aircraft are operated at temperatures that highlight the benefits of synthetic oils. [ http://www.swaviator.com/html/issueja02/Hangar7802.html ]  SignatureCheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos. The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotarians/volvo.html > Inside my engine is like a sewing machine no crud at all thanks to > synthetic oil. Oil removed during an oil change should appear dirty. If an oil is doing its job properly, it should suspend dirt, metallic wear materials, and unburned carbon. Therefore, when you change your oil it should look much dirtier than it did when first added to the engine. An excellent method for monitoring an oil¹s condition is through oil analysis, which can be key to any preventive maintenance program. Oil analysis must be conducted regularly to establish trends of operation. It provides information on wear metals, viscosity integrity, fuel dilution, and air intake system leaks, among other things. As a long-term preventive maintenance tool, it will build a history of the engine¹s performance and aid in the detection of possible problems before they become severe. Technically, oil does not wear out. However, extended use causes an oils additives to wear out or become depleted. For example, an ashless dispersant aviation oil is designed to suspend dirt and metal particles picked up from an aircraft engine. Eventually the oil will become "over-suspended." The principal reason oil is changed at regular intervals is to rid the engine of these suspended impurities. Old oil, with a high degree of contaminants, can cause bearing corrosion and deposit buildup. It can also get to the point where it will not suspend the additional particles created during engine operation. This produces particle buildup or sludge. Overworked oil will also result in the depletion of its other additives. The result is that it will be unable to perform with the benefits the additives were designed to provide. [ http://www.swaviator.com/html/issueja02/Hangar7802.html ] By the way, how long have you been repairing sewing machines? Do you tear down your car engine in your sewing machine repair shop? SignatureCheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos. The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotarians/volvo.html Back to the topic of turbo vs. non-turbo, I have a base 940 engine-wise. I ordered some extra options through European Delivery, but I do not have a turbo in the engine. Personally, that is the one thing about the car I would change. It is noticeably underpowered when compared to more modern cars, but overall, I would not change anything else. It is by far the most reliable car I have ever driven. >> Inside my engine is like a sewing machine no crud at all thanks to >> synthetic oil. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > By the way, how long have you been repairing sewing machines? Do you > tear down your car engine in your sewing machine repair shop? Actually I have repaired sewing machines AND I DO USE SYNTHETIC OIL IN OUR MACHINE, but you humour is also in need of repair .My nuff nuff sister in law prefers dino oil as its cheap so she gets junk oil changes and saves money ,mind you the crud in her oil cap is so bad it needs a screw diver to remove it . Update: I did end up getting a 95 SW plain 940 with 164K on board. Seems to be ok for its age , maybe needs some TLC, especially in the steering dept. (a bit loose), is that a DIY job? My other options were a 92 turbo sedan w/ 260K (decent shape) or a 91 SW turbo with 145k and electrical all messed up underneath (all 940's of course). Yes, this was an auction, and I should be ashamed to reveal the prices they went for. I'm looking forward to tidy up my new wagon, even w/o the turbo. Anything else to look at? Timing belt perhaps? Engine seems to run pretty smooth even if underpowered (oh well). Thanks again for the advices. > Update: I did end up getting a 95 SW plain 940 with 164K on board. > Seems to be ok for its age , maybe needs some TLC, especially in the > steering dept. (a bit loose), is that a DIY job? I think you will be very happy with your "new" 940. I would have a safety check made on the steering. That could be fatal if not fixed. I would want the peace of mind knowing it was safe. Where I live we have annual safety inspections just for that sort of thing. SignatureCheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos. The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotarians/volvo.html sorint@yahoo.com wrote: > I am contemplating getting a 940 soon, somewhere in the 91-95 range. I > was wondering if someone with experience here could shed some words of > wisdom: which models are better (reliability first) and which are less > desirable? GLE's? turbo's? SE's? Your input is greatly appreciated. The Turbo is inheritantly less reliable since the others don't have a turbo to fail. Also, people who don't let the turbo unwind before they shut the engine and hence the oil circulation off cause the turbo to fail early. It is not worth the risk on a used car if you want reliability. The best years are '94 and '95. GLE and SE is just a trim level. The lower trim models are inheritantly more reliable since they have less to fail. SignatureCheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos. The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotarians/volvo.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.