 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Volvo Cars / March 2007Last great Volvo?
This should be interesting. My '86 745 was great. Got it at 160K, 300K plus before it went to a friend who needed a car, and is still running. Got an '89 245 a few years ago, and it too rocked.180K/320K now. Time for a replacement ride, I'm leaning toward a 900 series wagon, is it worth going to the 6 cyl? The 850's, are they as good as the RWD models of the past? Tell me about the 5 cyl. engine. Fit/finish/repair costs anywhere near as good as earlier models? What is the general consensus of the last GREAT Volvo? Thanx, Jeff > This should be interesting. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thanx, Jeff 240!!! If you don't drive in the snow. >> What is the general consensus of the last GREAT Volvo? >> >> Thanx, Jeff > > 240!!! Agreed. > If you don't drive in the snow. But hey! Why do you say that? I live in Norway, and I drive my 240 Wagon in the snow and on the ice all winter (4-5 months on and off with snow and ice). Only thing is that they are a bit sensible on what sort of tires you use, and they get a lot better with a 50 - 80 Kg's extra in the empty spare tire room. But then you beat any RWD car any day!  SignatureRgds Ola Valan TT600-83 TT600-84 HD-68 TEA20-56 121-67 121-69 122S-69 245-84 245-87(TD) 245-92 >> What is the general consensus of the last GREAT Volvo? >> >> Thanx, Jeff > > 240!!! > If you don't drive in the snow. Here you can see how some "use" their Volvos in Scandinavia, this clip is from Finland: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCDNICXOqhk SignatureRgds Ola Valan TT600-83 TT600-84 HD-68 TEA20-56 121-67 121-69 122S-69 245-84 245-87(TD) 245-92 As they used to say about Volvos: "Drive 'em like you hate 'em. They're practically indestructible." That certainly seemed to be true of the earlier models. Today's Volvos have so much on-board computer electronics (as does every other car) that they're now a mite touchier adn not quite so indestructible. >>> What is the general consensus of the last GREAT Volvo? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCDNICXOqhk 1994-95 940 Turbo: solid, fast, not too bad looking. > This should be interesting. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thanx, Jeff Early 90's 940 turbo, nice looking, roomy, rear-wheel drive (goes well in snow if you put a snow tire on each corner)!! Plenty of power for a 4-cylinder. Avoid 6-cylinder Volvos at all costs! We've had several 5-cylinder V's, and they've been great --- lots of punch with the turbo --- if you like front wheel drive. > This should be interesting. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thanx, Jeff > Early 90's 940 turbo, nice looking, roomy, rear-wheel drive (goes well in > snow if you put a snow tire on each corner)!! Plenty of power for a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they've been great --- lots of punch with the turbo --- if you like front > wheel drive. I would say avoid the *V6* Volvos, but not all the 6 cylinders. The inline 6 used in the 960 is based on the same design as the inline 5, they're solidly made smooth running engines and hold up well so long as you keep up on timing belt and oil changes. > Early 90's 940 turbo, nice looking, roomy, rear-wheel drive (goes well in > snow if you put a snow tire on each corner)!! Plenty of power for a > 4-cylinder. > > Avoid 6-cylinder Volvos at all costs! We've had several 5-cylinder V's, 5 cylinder V's...???? Now that would present a balancing challenge! > and > they've been great --- lots of punch with the turbo --- if you like front [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >>Early 90's 940 turbo, nice looking, roomy, rear-wheel drive (goes well in >>snow if you put a snow tire on each corner)!! Plenty of power for a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 5 cylinder V's...???? Now that would present a balancing challenge! I think he meant V's as in Volvos. Yes, "V" as in Volvo. >>>Early 90's 940 turbo, nice looking, roomy, rear-wheel drive (goes well in >>>snow if you put a snow tire on each corner)!! Plenty of power for a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I think he meant V's as in Volvos. > > Avoid 6-cylinder Volvos at all costs! We've had several 5-cylinder V's, > > 5 cylinder V's...???? Now that would present a balancing challenge! Ask Honda, they built their MotoGP bike with a V5. As it won the campionship it must have been pretty good Thanx again for all the info on this topic. 9 series seems to be where I am heading. As I want to make my next Volvo both a wagon and RWD the below post concerns me the most. As I look around there seem to be more 965's than 945's. Several people (in this thread and elsewhere) have made mention to avoid the 6 cyl Volvos. Why? Jeff > Early 90's 940 turbo, nice looking, roomy, rear-wheel drive (goes well in > snow if you put a snow tire on each corner)!! Plenty of power for a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> >>Thanx, Jeff No reason to avoid them, but do would check the car out as thoroughly as you would any other 10 year old car with a lot of miles. Here's some information on the 6 cylinder engine used in the 960 series. http://www.swedishbricks.net/700900FAQ/960-90Info1.html > Mar 4, 9:14 am, Jeff Townsend <jtown...@nycap.rr.com> wrote: > Thanx again for all the info on this topic. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Thanx again for all the info on this topic. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why? Avoid the *V6* Volvos, some have had great success with that motor, but there are many sob stories and nobody wants to work on them. The I6 Volvos such as the 960 are very good, you just need to keep up on maintenance like you do with any of the white block motors. I commented about the 6-cylinder volvos. We had a '97 S90 (which is a 960) --- beautiful car, nice size, rwd, etc., however, it had a 6-cylinder engine, no turbo --- this was before they started adding the twin turbo to it on the S80s. The engine performed well at the low end of the power curve --- great pick-up from a standing stop --- but trying to get it to accelerate quickly at the higher end of the power curve, well there wasn't anything there. We had a near-incident where we needed to get out of the way quickly while running at about 60 MPH --- so when I pushed the accelerator to the floor to get a jump to 80 or so, absolutely nothing happened (we were able to avoid an accident by veering around awkwardly since we couldn't accelerate past it). We loved that car, but became very aware of its lack of power when needed, and switched it out for an S70 with a high-pressure turbo. We also still have a '91 940 turbo(the tried and true 4 cylinder engine), which has held up extremely well and has more power than that 6-cylinder S90 ever had. Best car Volvo ever made! Beyond that, Volvo used the 6-cylinder with a turbo in the S80 and several other models , and even that didn't work out very well. This last year, they dropped that 6-cylinder from all models that had it, and now have just introduced a new 6-cylinder that seems much better. All that, FWIW. > Thanx again for all the info on this topic. > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >>> >>>Thanx, Jeff > I commented about the 6-cylinder volvos. We had a '97 S90 (which is a > 960) --- beautiful car, nice size, rwd, etc., however, it had a 6-cylinder [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > All that, FWIW. Are you sure there was nothing wrong with your 960? The inline 6 is rated close to 200HP, while the 4 cylinder turbo in the 940 is 160HP. Now granted HP only tells part of the story, but the I6 should feel substantially more powerful than a stock B230FT. Was the kickdown function of the transmission working? Most engines with 4 valves per cylinder produce the bulk of their power in the higher RPM range just like the turbo engines. If the gearbox is not downshifted, they will feel sluggish. > This should be interesting. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thanx, Jeff The last really bulletproof classic Volvo was the 940, that's not to say the 960 or FWD cars are not good, but nothing else quite compares to the old redblock 4 cylinder motors. >> This should be interesting. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >the 960 or FWD cars are not good, but nothing else quite compares to the >old redblock 4 cylinder motors. Yes Jeff, I agree. I have a 940 injection (no turbo) 1992 and it drives still fine. Even after towing 9 years a motorboat across and above the alps in Europe! My car still runs at a topspeed of 200km/hour (tested in Germany). 230.000 km and going. Greetings from Belgium Chris <SNIP> >>> What is the general consensus of the last GREAT Volvo? >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Greetings from Belgium >Chris I fail to appreciate the NEED for a turbo. It's something that gives more pickup but it's ultimately time-limited before it's replaced and damned pricey when it is. I once said I would consider a turbo when I saw *lots* of cars with 100K+ miles on them with turbos still running well. Agruably, that's been proven but I just don't need that extra boost (of course, I'm not in my 20s anymore). The non-turbos, properly maintained, have always satisfied my needs. Chuck Fiedler Nothing but Volvo since 1974 > I fail to appreciate the NEED for a turbo. It's something that gives > more pickup but it's ultimately time-limited before it's replaced and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > boost (of course, I'm not in my 20s anymore). The non-turbos, properly > maintained, have always satisfied my needs. Have you looked on ebay lately? You can pick up a brand new turbo for under 200 bucks with some luck, or your existing one can be rebuilt for about $300. Given the huge improvement in drivability (depends on the terrain and what you do with it) I can't imagine not having the turbo. I can tow a boat over the pass, merge into traffic on our hilly highways, and yet still get good fuel economy around town. The myth that turbos are unreliable went away when they became water cooled. 285K on mine, shaft is a bit sloppy but no rubbing yet and no smoke. >> I fail to appreciate the NEED for a turbo. It's something that gives >> more pickup but it's ultimately time-limited before it's replaced and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >are unreliable went away when they became water cooled. 285K on mine, >shaft is a bit sloppy but no rubbing yet and no smoke. James, I grant your point as in the prior note. *I*, however, have been perfectly satisfied with the non-turbo versions. Granted I don't have a boat and, as for hilly terrain, have you ever been to Dallas? <G> Chuck Fiedler Nothing but Volvo since 1974 > James, I grant your point as in the prior note. *I*, however, have > been perfectly satisfied with the non-turbo versions. Granted I don't > have a boat and, as for hilly terrain, have you ever been to Dallas? > <G> Not saying *you* need or even want a turbo, just helping to debunk the persistent unreliable/expensive myth surrounding them in general. Thanx to all who have responded so far. I was really teetering between a 945T or moving to an 850 with the 5 cyl., though I prefer RWD. I was happy to see the positive responses for the 900 series. If anyone else has suggestions, please chime in. I don't really have the 10K to buy something like a late model used XC or V series, but I would be interested in opinions on their long use reviews. If it weren't for my 245 fan blower problem, and the fact that my mechanic cannot seem to keep the front seal in it (yes the flame trap gets changed regularly) ,I would just keep driving my old buddy. Thanx all, Jeff >> James, I grant your point as in the prior note. *I*, however, have >> been perfectly satisfied with the non-turbo versions. Granted I don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not saying *you* need or even want a turbo, just helping to debunk the > persistent unreliable/expensive myth surrounding them in general. www.driverzedgevsc.comOn Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:13:09 -0500, Jeff Townsend <jtownse2@nycap.rr.com> wrote: >Thanx to all who have responded so far. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Thanx all, Jeff Jeff, I have personally done a fan blower replacement on a 240. It's a bitch but it ain't impossible. To do it right is about 10 hours including all the disassembly and reassembly. Now, some mechanics know how to "cheat", cutting holes in the sides of the housing and reassembling therefrom. It's not the way *I* would do it but then I'm not into DIY anymore. If it were my car with which I'm happy, I sure wouldn't shitcan it over a blower motor problem. That's my dos centovos americanos for your consideration. Chuck Fiedler Nothing but Volvo since 1974 > www.driverzedgevsc.comOn Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:13:09 -0500, Jeff > Townsend <jtownse2@nycap.rr.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > That's my dos centovos americanos for your consideration. The one I did took me about 6 hours, when I was in the middle of it, it looked like the car had been picked over in a junkyard. It was tedious but not difficult, worst part was getting the fan off the shaft on one side, seems like it had seized on there pretty good. In my own 240 a previous mechanic had cut a hole in the blower box cover but I found I could remove the cover without too much difficulty as the plastic has some flex. > Thanx to all who have responded so far. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Thanx all, Jeff The fan motor is not really *that* hard to change. Has he checked for positive crankcase pressure? More than just the flame trap can cause that. It's possible for the breather box to get clogged. Loosen the oil fill cap with the engine running and see if it hops around or stays sucked to the hole. > > Thanx to all who have responded so far. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Loosen the oil fill cap with the engine running and see if it hops > around or stays sucked to the hole. Which way shows the problem: hopping or sucking? >>>Thanx to all who have responded so far. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Which way shows the problem: hopping or sucking? Hopping means positive pressure, the cap will feel the same effect as the oil seals. Sounds like you have seen the light rear wheel drive or the expensive all whell drive are best .Front wheel drive is nasty on tire \ tyre wear and has problems with complexity as well as cost . > Thanx to all who have responded so far. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> Not saying *you* need or even want a turbo, just helping to debunk the >> persistent unreliable/expensive myth surrounding them in general. Wise choice > Thanx to all who have responded so far. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> Not saying *you* need or even want a turbo, just helping to debunk the >> persistent unreliable/expensive myth surrounding them in general. > This should be interesting. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thanx, Jeff I've owned Volvo cars since 1984, and to be perfectly honest each one represented a significant improvement in terms of safety, performance, handling and drivability. I have fond memories of driving a 240, but in comparison to a modern car it was underpowered, had barely acceptable handling and was dreadful in the snow. So to answer your question, the last GREAT Volvo has to be the most recent one I'm driving, which is a 2004 V70 2.5T. I've owned: 1984 240 1987 240 1988 740 1996 960 2000 S80 2004 V70 >>This should be interesting. >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > question, the last GREAT Volvo has to be the most recent one I'm > driving, which is a 2004 V70 2.5T. As many have said though, these issues can all be fixed without too much trouble or cost. Swaybars, decent shocks, and good tires completely transform a 240. I'd agree about the power, except I've gone with the turbos which are definitely not underpowered. > >>This should be interesting. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - With enough parts one can radically transform the performance any middling car. But the original poster was asking what the last great Volvo was and NOT how to correct a design that is seriously outdated by current standards. Certainly some handling issues of the 240 can be improved, but it will still drive like an underpowered, tall, boxy sedan that lacks many modern safety features. > I've owned Volvo cars since 1984, and to be perfectly honest each one > represented a significant improvement in terms of safety, performance, > handling and drivability. I have had 10 volvos since 1967 and I agree. Each one is better than the previous. I have been able to avoid sun roofs, leather and turbos and have avoided problems. The XC70 does have a low pressure turbo and that seems OK. 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://rhodyman.net/homevo.html >This should be interesting. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Thanx, Jeff Well, Jeff, I've owned *most* Volvo models since the 1960 544 (which I loved and wish I had again today for it's oddity). I never owned a 700 or a 900 or anything later than the 850. I have usually bought used models with 50-150K miles on them and driven them for another 50K or so before moving on, not for failure to serve but just the desire to update. While there is considerable nostalgia wrapped in the older models, the later models with ABS and airbags are considerably safer (IMNSHO) although there is arguably more to go wrong and require damned expensive replacement parts. Right now I have a '93 240 and a '97 850. The 850 is clearly a more refined vehicle and has given excellent service to date (87K miles as of this writing). The 5cyl engine is smooth and trouble free. The sideways arrangement of the engine gives my mechanic some challenges with the periodic snake belt replacement but that's infrequent. Oh yeah, I *could* do this work myself but at 63, I've lost my interest in DIY car work. That ain't a concensus but it's one man's view of a brand to which I give the appearance of loyalty. Chuck Fiedler Nothing but Volvo since 1974 > This should be interesting. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thanx, Jeff I guess it depends upon your definition of great. Some would put the cut-off at the '93 240 as the end of the line of the last Volvo which completely embodied the original spirit of the company. Another choice might be the last of the 940s. For really long term durability it is hard to match the "red-block" 4 cylinder rear wheel drive Volvos. Starting with the 850, Volvo was making great effort to reduce costs by doing things like making more and more parts out of plastic. Compare the constuction details of a 240 to an 850 sometime to see this. Even so, and 850 was built with more care and more over engineering than most of it's contemporaries. John > I guess it depends upon your definition of great. Some would put the > cut-off at the '93 240 as the end of the line of the last Volvo which [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > John In all fairness, it wasn't just to reduce cost. Much of the change to lighter materials was to improve fuel efficiency, and with the 850 they did succeed in squeezing out substantially improved fuel economy. >> I guess it depends upon your definition of great. Some would put the >> cut-off at the '93 240 as the end of the line of the last Volvo which [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >lighter materials was to improve fuel efficiency, and with the 850 they >did succeed in squeezing out substantially improved fuel economy. I agree 100% Greetings, Chris > In all fairness, it wasn't just to reduce cost. Much of the change to > lighter materials was to improve fuel efficiency, and with the 850 they > did succeed in squeezing out substantially improved fuel economy. According to the EPA figures, a '93 manual transmission 240 was rated at 21 city, 28 highway. The 850 for the same year with manual transmission was rated at 21 city, 30 highway. Certainly a slight gain, but not what I would call substantial. I've owned both 240s and 850s and I did not find the 850 to have markedly better fuel economy than the 240. With automatic transmissions both run in the low 20s for local driving and the high 20s for long highway trips. John You're comparing an established 4-cylinder engine (the '93 240) with a brand new 5-cylinder engine( '93 850). By 2000, we were able to get 30+MPG highway on the 5-cylinder/auto/hi- pressure turbo. What I would consider to be a very nice improvement. >> In all fairness, it wasn't just to reduce cost. Much of the change to >> lighter materials was to improve fuel efficiency, and with the 850 they [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > John > You're comparing an established 4-cylinder engine (the '93 240) with a > brand new 5-cylinder engine( '93 850). By 2000, we were able to get 30+MPG [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - We had an 89 240 for years and currently drive a 98 V70 non-turbo with automatic trans. The improvement in gas mileage has been significant. The 240 got around 20 city/25 highway, while the V70 gets around 25 city/ low 30s highway. All figures in miles per Can./UK gallon. When you take into account the extra carrying capacity of the wagon and the slightly extra hp of the larger 5 cyl. engine, this is a good news story. Inno D. > > This should be interesting. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > cut-off at the '93 240 as the end of the line of the last Volvo which > completely embodied the original spirit of the company. Uuuuhh, and just what is the original spirit that post 1993 cars seem to lack. Safety has been a cornerstone of the Volvo reputation, and I think it is "safe" to say that the later cars are indeed much safer than the earlier boxes on wheels. And they certainly handle much better. > Another choice > might be the last of the 940s. For really long term durability it is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Show quoted text - |
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.