Stephen said:
It depends on the year. The '94 & '95 940 had a good reliability
record. The '95 to '97 850's had a good reliability record. They were
both good cars.
I never owned a 940 because I thought the 240 was a better version of
the same car. My 850's were cheaper to maintain, even with the
additional mechanisms of FWD. Nothing is much simpler than a 240. The
weaknesses of the 240 were the adaptation of the pollution system to the
engine and the suspension with its pronounced body lean on turning and
the resulting effect on tire wear. They never did quite get it right.
The 850 was a complete redesign with a super engine and great suspension
system. The first year and a half they had a weakness in the automatic
transmission, but they fixed that.
IMO Volvo have been going downhill since the 240, the newer cars appear
better, but the reliability has been going down. Having said that its
not that bad and it applies to most cars, most people don't want to pay
for a car that lasts 20 years and looks out of date after 5 or so.
Which is handy for those that do appreciate a well built car.
My 940 has plastic pedals which causes me to crunch gears occassionally
because the plastic has worn a slot in the pedal and pushrod. 240s and
740s had metal pedal. The sun roof also leaks because the seal is on
sideways on glass and not on vertically like metal sunroofs. However it
has done 133K miles and not given any real trouble, except when I tried
a top speed test (140MPH) with turbo turned up to 11psi, even then it
struggled on with a cracked turbo and just needed water every so often
(for a few years). I have always abused my Volvos and the Turbos are
the most sensitive, but still pretty robust and relatively cheap to sort
a turbo.
The 940/740/240 can take considerable abuse and still hold together
running gear, interior, exterior etc, but the only 850s I've looked at
were in terrible shape with broken window mechanisms, broken bits of
interior, dodgy engine management, sloppy suspension brakes etc.
If you are looking at cars >7 years old I can't imagine anything cheaper
than a 940 to maintain, 850s just don't last, but then no cars do these
days. 940s etc will basically last for as long as you want them to with
a galvanised chassis you just have to replace service items mainly and
turbos say every 150K.
My 1995 940 Turbo estate 133K miles (Bilstein rear+Springs on purchase)
- Excellent condition, V quick, no rust, clutch pedal linkage and leaky
sunroof (fixed).
My previous 87 360 saloon 200K miles - had a dirty coil once and was
hard to start, then alternator bearing wore out at 180K miles, and a few
burnt out swtiches and corroded rad at 10 years old, amazingly reliable
car never ever broke down.
Sisters 96 940 Turbo Estate 100K - Excellent condition after a new oil
pump and eventually turbo, previous owner had never changed the oil.
My Partners 97 BMW 323i 80K - Several engine break downs, suspension
overhauls -plastic ball joints! - broken rear springs, knackered shocks,
failed ABS sensor, corroded alloys, rust showing on rear.
I wouldn't hesitate to say a 940 would be cheaper to maintain than a BMW
or an 850.
