Looking for opinions - what models are trouble?

We've only owned two 1970s 240s for years now. I love our 1978, but
I am getting a bit worn out having no air conditioning, heavy steering
that no-one can make lighter, 9km per litre of petrol...

But I don't want to buy something that I'm fixing and throwing money
at all the time either. The 240 has been excellent in this respect.
So I'm Looking for opinions on what models are the most trouble free -
or what models to avoid.

For instance, I've heard the early 240 6 cylinder engines were largely
duds and the blocks became porous. That the 164 had terrible fuel
economy. The 240s have poor air conditioning. The 740s had two
automatic gearboxes and one should be avoided as it would commit
suicide over a ten-second high engine idle. The 300 series had an
engine (Renault was it?) to avoid. Interference engines in all models
are to be avoided. Engines with belt driven water pumps...

Basically, if it's possible, I want a car that is still as reliable as
our 1978 244. Something that means my family won't die if some idiot
hits us. Has cool air conditioning. Needs only a few oil changes a
year, a new timing belt every couple of years, new oil seals every 5
or 10... and isn't at the mechanic several times a year like the other
goobers I know that own fords, Nissans, Toyotas, etc.

So what are the economy, reliability and safety of these like (say out
of 10)?

440 (am particularly interested in comments on this - especially
safety since it's so small)

740 (similar to 240s I assume?)
760 (engine quality? Does economy suffer due to the 6 cylinders?)
850
940
960

and all the "X" series and anything else I've left out.

Thanks for reading...

Allan.

 

I'm unfamiliar with all the Europe-only models (300, 400) but the late
240s have improved air conditioning. The 740s and 940s also have pretty
good A/C, though you might want to get a '91(?) or later which already
is designed for R134a refrigerant. I'd avoid the V6, but 760s with the
turbo-4 are fine. No real experience with the 850 and 960 but they seem
to be pretty well designed cars. Oh, I would also avoid pre-88 760s with
the vacuum operated climate control unless you like pulling your hair
out tracking down leaks.

All of the above have more bells & whistles to break than your 70's 240
but since you desire more features there's no getting around that.

 

If you want a similar car without having to do lots of little
repairs, try a 940 with low miles and full service records. As for
your '78, using the narrowest acceptable tires (prefereably with a
softer rubber for decent grip) and running them about 5 psi under
the tire manufacturer's maximum pressure, should help both the
heavy steering and lousy fuel economy - at least a bit. And you can
get aftermarket A/C installed for about $800.

--







http://freevision.org/michael/index.html

 

The closest thing would be a 90s 940. They were still engineered and
built in the fashion of the 240. The 850 and later vehicles are in my
experience much more costly to keep going in the over 100,000 mile range.

John

 

i've driven volvos since 1963, p540, 122s, 240s... my latest was a 1986
245 and i got 460K smiles from it and look to give it away to anyone
willing to put up with the rust. my 1981 245 is still resting in the
driveway. the 1983 244 sedan has found a good home... i'm now in a
great 1990 245 with 80K on it. it's great, and may be the last volvo
i will ever own. STAY WITH THE 240 series, *nothing* is better.

janos

 

The factory aircon in a 90's 940 with the 2.3 litre normally aspirated
motor will impose significant drag, meaning you have to turn it off if
you want to accelerate quickly. The turbo may not have this problem. A
more efficient after-market compressor may not have the problem to the
same degree either.

--
Cheers

Andrew

<--- Remove The NO and SPAM When Replying --->

 

Yep, I hear you... Our 1976 had very light steering - I could turn it
with one finger and with wide tyres. The steering on this '78 is so
heavy, it's ridiculous. If I drive it a lot in a week, I get a sore
shoulder and wrists. It's got air conditioning, but of course it
doesn't work. I paid one guy to fix the air a few years ago when we
bought it, and it made no difference.

So... No comments on the 440s anyone?

Allan.

 

I wish! (I'm in Australia.)

 

Volvo built their reputation for reliability on the 240, and cashed it out
on the 850.

The 940 was the last of the 4-cylinder, rear-wheel-drive, legendary Volvos,
with a little more comfort than 240, but a trifle underpowered without
turbo.

 

Thanks... I can't understand why no-ones commented on the 440s! Were
they not released in the USA!?

 

In <>,

They were not. Nor were the 3-series. The only Dutch made Volvo to make
it here was the old S40/V40 (pre-2004.5).

AC

 

We had a '94 440 with the 2.0 engine It was reasonably quick and
probably as comfortable as anything else of the same size. The snag was
it used vast amounts of oil about 2 pints every 1000 miles and it had
only covered 120,000 miles. I also think they were more prone to rust
than the larger volvos.

 

Nope, the 300 and 400 series never appeared anywhere in North America.
To me they don't even look like Volvos.

 

I know... The x's and c's don't to me either. If you saw the
Australian Holden Commodore or Ford AU or BA Falcon, you'd know why
; )