Listen up Volvo! I want a new 240.

  • Thread starter Thread starter shrike
  • Start date Start date
I had a 1976 262 GL (also a '76 264 and a '78 264) before trading it for an
'87 240. I'd take a 262 or 264 over a 240. That V6 was a fine engine.

-RL
 
I want it new, I want it with manual windows, I want it with the dirt
reliable 4 banger and I want it now.

What is your problem! I've got a whole set of metric wrenches, and a
wax kit. All I want is a car built lilke a brick outhouse that
_doesn't_ have an interference engine. In a nutshell, I want ONE new
car on the market that is designed to be owner maintained. I _want_ a
240. What is _so_ wrong with that concept?

I don't want your rice burner wannabee, I don't want your souped up
boosted ford-a-zilla piece of crap that will eat valves if I forget
maintenance. I want a VOLVO.

Did you just wear out the dies and were too damned lazy to cut new
ones? I want a new 240! Why did you ever stop building this car? I
_want_ a new 240!

-psy
Click to expand...


You know, if you're willing to spend $30K on a 240, you could find a
late model and have it completely rebuilt to showroom condition, in
effect you can have a new 240, you just can't get it from Volvo.
 
Howdy,

I would have to ditto the mileage on the red engine. It was always
fairly good considering the size of the car. Yeah you _can_ get better
mileage by thinning the mixture till the head glows, or running a
higher compression with a smaller engine and winding it up further or
cutting the tin out and running skinny tires.

If you do that you increase your depency on electronics to manage all
that crap, increase the wear on the internal parts causing shorter
total engine life, and have a car that you can't drive confidently in
hard city driving. A Volvo would make a good taxicab, a camry would
make a good recycled pepsi-can under the same driving conditions.

The 240 is/was just one of the most balanced systems ever put into
sheet metal. Everything went together so that the car was just right.
Not sporty, or luxury, but right.

I think there is a nitch market for a new 240. That market is all the
people in the world who just don't think all the BS features are that
important. I want a car, not a fricken vibrating barkolounger
entertainment center. Thanks for the cupholders at least, but you can
keep everything else! I want a 240!

-psy
Click to expand...


Sorry, but there are quite a few Volvo and Camry owners here,
and we can tell you that the '92-'96 Camry weighs about the same
as a 240, has an engine about the same size (the four is 2.2 liters)
and both gets *much* better gas mileage and also has a bulletproof
engine. It's less fun to drive, a bit less comfortable in some ways,
but it shows what Volvo could do without just reinstating the old 240.
Maybea CVT isn't the way to go; maybe a smart transmission that knows
when to coast, like my Camry has, would be the way to go. In any case,
the 240 can easily be improved upon.

--







http://freevision.org/michael/index.html
 
Michael said:
Sorry, but there are quite a few Volvo and Camry owners here,
and we can tell you that the '92-'96 Camry weighs about the same
as a 240, has an engine about the same size (the four is 2.2 liters)
and both gets *much* better gas mileage and also has a bulletproof
engine. It's less fun to drive, a bit less comfortable in some ways,
but it shows what Volvo could do without just reinstating the old 240.
Maybea CVT isn't the way to go; maybe a smart transmission that knows
when to coast, like my Camry has, would be the way to go. In any case,
the 240 can easily be improved upon.
---
Click to expand...

But with an engine where components are so tightly fit that they are
virtually impossible to change or refurbish. Fine as long as it's running,
but when the mechanic gives up... ?
I had one of the riceboilers in the -90's where the crankshaft bearings were
worn out. Had to scrap the whole car, since the refurbising meant buying a
new engine. And the pricetag of the engine was way higher than the remaining
value of the car itself.

I prefer a car which can be maintained by means of a hammer, a screwdriver
and an adjustable spanner (monkey wrench) to something that cannot be
adjusted without special equipment and that furthermore is likely to rust
away.
 
Robert said:
I had a 1976 262 GL (also a '76 264 and a '78 264) before trading it for an
'87 240. I'd take a 262 or 264 over a 240. That V6 was a fine engine.

-RL
Click to expand...

The 260 series V6 engine had an extremely good torque, which was good if you
often used it to tow. With a 1.5 ton caravan behind i used to overtake other
uphill, expecially those looong ones normally quenching the power out of almost
anything ::-).

The only problem was that it had a built in design flaw. The oil channels to the
top were to narrow in the B27 and the camshafts didn't get enough lubrication
causing them to wear down. Unless of course you used synthetic oil and changed
it between regular service intervals.
 
On one of my 260's (the one that went to 375Kmiles), I added extra piping
from the oil pan to the valve cover, with a little pump, to dump some extra
oil on the camshaft. You're right about the torque, all of mine were 4+OD
manuals and they could take off from a standstill as quickly as modern cars
with half the weight.
 
I prefer a car which can be maintained by means of a hammer, a screwdriver
and an adjustable spanner (monkey wrench) to something that cannot be
adjusted without special equipment and that furthermore is likely to rust
away.
Click to expand...

I think what you're looking for is a rickshaw.
 
Fuel economy on my '84 was pretty respectable for it's day.
Click to expand...

Sure. For its day. The technology has improved, why settle for less?
You can drop in a small block Chevy V8, and associated transmission, and
get better fuel economy (27+ mpg on the highway) and performance than when
the car was new.
Just what do you mean my "Secondary Systems"?
Click to expand...

Just about anything electrical on a Volvo. How about the 86+ seats that
tend to age far worse than the earlier ones? How about the air
conditioning? Tailgate harness? Transmission mounts?
You can't get any more bullet-proof than the 240, Red Engine...
either regular or turbo.
Click to expand...

Of course, those motors are hardly without problems. From piston slap to
total engine destruction. There's a reason Volvo was forced to redesign
the B200/B230. Unfortunately for them, it took far too long.

How about the engine control systems? The Chrysler lean burn system that
makes passing smog a bear. The fiddly K-Jet setup (especially on
the turbo).

Every new motor that Volvo has introduced has been more complicated. Boy
the 240 ushered in a nightmare with them newfangled overhead cam designs.
Freaking timing belts. Guess what? They seemed to have survived just
fine. And if you want to extract more modern levels of performance out of
a B230, there are cams out there that will work... and turn your motor
into an interference design.
 
I would have to ditto the mileage on the red engine. It was always fairly
good considering the size of the car. Yeah you _can_ get better mileage by
thinning the mixture till the head glows, or running a higher compression
with a smaller engine and winding it up further or cutting the tin out and
running skinny tires.
Click to expand...

Or you can tweak the gearing, or you can use more modern drivetrain
management, or you can design the car to be more aerodynamic, and so on,
and so forth. Everything's a tradeoff, but not all tradeoffs are equal.

If you're leaning the mixture to the point that the head(!) is glowing,
you're way past peak efficiency. Similarly, an overly rich mixture will
do wonders for overheating your catalytic converter and possibly washing
the oil off of the cylinder walls, increasing engine wear.

As was pointed out, a Camry is of a similar power to weight ratio as a
240. Yet, the four banger Camry will handily get significantly better
mileage than a 240. There are a few things working in the Camry's favour.
At legal highway speeds, my friend's 87 Camry was turning under 2000 RPM.
Try that with a 240. Similarly, the Camry also had a lockup torque
conveter, something that a 240 never got (yet a lockup transmission is
hardly new, exotic, delicate, or complicated).
If you do that you increase your depency on electronics to manage all
that crap, increase the wear on the internal parts causing shorter total
engine life, and have a car that you can't drive confidently in hard
city driving. A Volvo would make a good taxicab, a camry would make a
good recycled pepsi-can under the same driving conditions.
Click to expand...

They use Camrys as taxis out here (California, home to some of the
shittiest roads ever built). If you've got such a fear of electronics,
why are you driving a 240? You realize that 240s in the US all have
electronic ignitions, most have electronic idle control, and most have
electronic fuel injection? If what you say is true, we should see a whole
lot more 140s on the road than 240s.

Let's not forget that Volvo switched to electronic speedometers in the US
(in 86) well before many other companies. Yet, the real speedometer
problems were mechanical (with the odometer gears breaking and such).
The 240 is/was just one of the most balanced systems ever put into sheet
metal. Everything went together so that the car was just right. Not
sporty, or luxury, but right.
Click to expand...

Hardly. If that were true, IPD wouldn't make a killing selling upgraded
anti-sway bars to handle the pretty lousy stock suspension setup.

I think the real problem is that most people are waving their hands in
despair... fretting over these newfangled 850s. When in reality, you're
seeing more and more high mileage 850s on the road, in pretty darn good
shape, getting much better fuel economy out of a similar sized engine to
boot.

Did I mention that a non-turbo 850 has a similar power to weight ratio as
a 700/900 series turbo?
 
Everything's a tradeoff, but not all tradeoffs are equal.

Absolutely. We would have to establish a baseline before being able
tocompare arguments. What I am looking for is a dirt reliable,
mechanically simplistic, pragmatic, maintainable car. I consider
mileage subordinate to maintainability, I also prefer a longer term
depreciation cycle.

Yeah IPD sells performance parts. I'm not talking about performance.
I'm talking about systematic balance. The 240 had very few weaknesses,
and so really defined its own market to some degree. I think part of
that market was left void when the 240 went out of production.

Of course it could be improved! I think a volvo 240 with the mercedes
617 4 cylinder diesel, and the Mercedes Tex interior would be the
ultimate car. (Yeah they would drive like tractor trailer trucks. but
they'd probably get 40MPG) Obviously mechanical windows, mechanical
sunroof, a better headliner, and some other interior fixes. Push button
breakers, instead of fuses, etc. I can't of one production vehicle that
couldn't be improved.

The 240 was a last-of-breed car. It was the poor-mans rolls royce. It
was one of the last cars whose demise wasn't scheduled into the
engineering before it hit the assembly line.
With fuel costs being what they are, vehicle value in the USA is going
to be reassessed. One thing the 240 always did was provide good long
term value, not because it was the best at anything, but because it was
very good at a lot things. That is what I want. I want a 240!

-psy
 
This might help put it in perspective.

I sold a my wife's '81 244 NA to a good friend of mine.

The car was about 300K miles, well maintained.

He has a mechanical background, and it's the first Volvo he'd worked
on.

He was basically in awe at the build quality, the understressed engine,
and most of all, he commented that it was like they had in mind the
concept of DIY repair when the built it: pretty much all systems can be
fairly easily accessed for repair, especially the stuff that usually
gets worked on.

He's right, of course.
 
Absolutely. We would have to establish a baseline before being able
tocompare arguments. What I am looking for is a dirt reliable,
mechanically simplistic, pragmatic, maintainable car. I consider
mileage subordinate to maintainability, I also prefer a longer term
depreciation cycle.

Yeah IPD sells performance parts. I'm not talking about performance.
I'm talking about systematic balance. The 240 had very few weaknesses,
and so really defined its own market to some degree. I think part of
that market was left void when the 240 went out of production.

Of course it could be improved! I think a volvo 240 with the mercedes
617 4 cylinder diesel, and the Mercedes Tex interior would be the
ultimate car. (Yeah they would drive like tractor trailer trucks. but
they'd probably get 40MPG) Obviously mechanical windows, mechanical
sunroof, a better headliner, and some other interior fixes. Push button
breakers, instead of fuses, etc. I can't of one production vehicle that
couldn't be improved.

The 240 was a last-of-breed car. It was the poor-mans rolls royce. It
was one of the last cars whose demise wasn't scheduled into the
engineering before it hit the assembly line.
With fuel costs being what they are, vehicle value in the USA is going
to be reassessed. One thing the 240 always did was provide good long
term value, not because it was the best at anything, but because it was
very good at a lot things. That is what I want. I want a 240!

-psy
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. About 6 years ago I bought a 1985 245 stick with 180K
miles $500. Only got it because I wanted a big underpowered manual car for
my two children who were just coming of driving age and my neighbor's son
was selling it to get 4-runner. Some rust but ran strong. Multiple trips to
junk yard for trim. Junk yard Turbo sway bars and new bushings ($50). Repair
hatch wiring ($5). Rebuilt drivers seat ($50). New fuel pump ($~$300). Tires
($300). Was a great project for myself and my son who was just starting to
drive. Was a safe car for him and both kids used the car for 5 years. I
drive it now at 280K miles. Oil changed every 3500 miles. Timing belt and
other usual expenses. Rust around windows "fixed" with GE silicone,
unattractive but works. Using regular gas car gets 20mpg overall and 25mpg
on long freeway trips, burns no oil and still runs strong. Has been on
300-500 mile trips at 70-75 mph without problem. A/C of course doesn't work.
manual windows. It is a big ugly beast which I can park anywhere without
worry of dings, break-ins or other problems. Car will probably die of rust
or failed engine wiring harness. Cost and effort of wiring harness
replacement I can't justify. The 240's of any vintage are great "project"
cars and something that parents and children can work on together. Kids can
learn to change oil, trouble shoot, use a wrench and replace parts, etc. The
"brickboard" is a wonderful resource.
Could a company build one today, of course not. Is restoration of a 240
possible, yes. Does it make sense, no. The car has been a hoot and I will
continue to drive it until the wheels fall off. It helps that I live in an
area where A/C is not needed and an old Volvo is considered "cool".
Thanks for the opportunity to reminisce
Howard
 
Howdy,

I would have to ditto the mileage on the red engine. It was always
fairly good considering the size of the car. Yeah you _can_ get better
mileage by thinning the mixture till the head glows, or running a
higher compression with a smaller engine and winding it up further or
cutting the tin out and running skinny tires.
Click to expand...


My mom's '86 245 with an M47 gearbox I put in it does just a hair over
30 mpg highway and that's with the original O2 sensor with over 250K on
it. These things *can* get pretty darn good mileage for a car that size
and weight.
 
Johan said:
Robert Lutwak wrote:




The 260 series V6 engine had an extremely good torque, which was good if you
often used it to tow. With a 1.5 ton caravan behind i used to overtake other
uphill, expecially those looong ones normally quenching the power out of almost
anything ::-).

The only problem was that it had a built in design flaw. The oil channels to the
top were to narrow in the B27 and the camshafts didn't get enough lubrication
causing them to wear down. Unless of course you used synthetic oil and changed
it between regular service intervals.
Click to expand...


The 4 cylinder turbo is just so much better overall that once it came
out the V6 seemed obsolete even if it didn't have the flaws. The turbo
gets better mileage, is easier to work on, more reliable and more
powerful, not to mention the resale value is much better since most
everyone avoids the V6's.
 
Turbo. It actually looks better than the guy who posted the pix of his 2
Door a few weeks ago...at least I have the real Turbo Rims...and a real
one in the trunk!
Click to expand...

So let's see some pics...
 
I want it new, I want it with manual windows, I want it with the dirt
reliable 4 banger and I want it now.

What is your problem! I've got a whole set of metric wrenches, and a
wax kit. All I want is a car built lilke a brick outhouse that
_doesn't_ have an interference engine. In a nutshell, I want ONE new
car on the market that is designed to be owner maintained. I _want_ a
240. What is _so_ wrong with that concept?

I don't want your rice burner wannabee, I don't want your souped up
boosted ford-a-zilla piece of crap that will eat valves if I forget
maintenance. I want a VOLVO.

Did you just wear out the dies and were too damned lazy to cut new
ones? I want a new 240! Why did you ever stop building this car? I
_want_ a new 240!

-psy
Click to expand...

I have fond memories of my first Volvo, a 1984 240 D as well as a 1987
240DL. Both were fine cars that gave excellent service for more than
200,000 miles each and the 240 D served as the household driver
training car for three teenagers. However in comparison to my V70 and
S80 the 240 is a seriously dated design. It's handling, stability and
performance are not anything to brag about in comparison with current
models.

Time marches on. I also have fond memories of the many cars I owned as
a teenager, but that is how they should remain - memories. The reality
is that old cars, even when rebuilt from the ground up still perfrom
like an old car. They look great though.
 
I have fond memories of my first Volvo, a 1984 240 D as well as a 1987
240DL. Both were fine cars that gave excellent service for more than
200,000 miles each and the 240 D served as the household driver
training car for three teenagers. However in comparison to my V70 and
S80 the 240 is a seriously dated design. It's handling, stability and
performance are not anything to brag about in comparison with current
models.

Time marches on. I also have fond memories of the many cars I owned as
a teenager, but that is how they should remain - memories. The reality
is that old cars, even when rebuilt from the ground up still perfrom
like an old car. They look great though.
Click to expand...

So lets take this conversation and make it reality. The car we speak of is
made today.
Ok it's not a Volvo quality vehicle, but its simple, has modern safety
systems, and is relatively simple.

http://www.daciagroup.com/eKontentDaciaXFiles/home/gamme/logan/logan/index.html
http://renault-logan.eastrolog.com/renault-logan-sedan.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia_Logan
http://www.businessweek.com/@@b5MKlYUQHl8Q8hgA/magazine/content/05_27/b3941072_mz054.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502026.html
 
Steve said:
So lets take this conversation and make it reality. The car we speak of is
made today.
Ok it's not a Volvo quality vehicle, but its simple, has modern safety
systems, and is relatively simple.
Click to expand...


I'm sure there is more than one car made today that could fill that
requirement. But lets not forget that the Volvo 240 series was not an
inexpensive car when new, so we have to compare apples to apples so to
speak. And heck you could even plug the S40 in as a 240 replacement.
Or a Toyota Camry. The hangup for many who like the old 240 will be the
lack of rear wheel drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top