Last great Volvo?

Yes, "V" as in Volvo.

 

Ask Honda, they built their MotoGP bike with a V5. As it won the campionship
it must have been pretty good

 

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

 

www.driverzedgevsc.comOn Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:13:09 -0500, 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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Which way shows the problem: hopping or sucking?

 

Hopping means positive pressure, the cap will feel the same effect as
the oil seals.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

I agree 100%

Greetings,

Chris

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.