Last great Volvo?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeff Townsend
  • Start date Start date
J

Jeff Townsend

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.

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
Click to expand...

240!!!
If you don't drive in the snow.
 
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.
 
z said:
Agreed.

If you don't drive in the snow.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Jeff said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
mdrawson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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,
Click to expand...

5 cylinder V's...???? Now that would present a balancing challenge!
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
Roadie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...

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.
 
Roadie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top