posted by
someone claiming to be bmwguy22
on
Tue Dec 18 09:57 CST 2007 [ RELATED]
|
|
With all the hype around 70-80's cars (i.e. Chrysler 300C etcetra) when you take a look at an above average early-mid 80's Volvo wagon with the reflectors below the headlights, it's almost easy to confuse the car's bodylines with that of the much newer Dodge Magnum (tho a nice set of 16 or 17 inch wheels would help too).
WHat do you guys think?
|
|
-
|
|
Since this got bumped back to the top.. I'll throw in my $.02
Bottom line is, Volvo *did* make a 'retro' 240. well, a retro 140 might be more accurate, but since the body lines carried from '67, I'd go so far as to say any 240 with flush headlights ('86 model year in the states, of course), could be considered a retro. The ultimate, of course, being the '240 Classic'. Is that a name for a retro, or what? That they never quit in the middle doesn't much matter.
The PV line started.. when? 1944 or so? so lets say all models with a B18 ('62ish) and later were the 'retro' versions.
The 122/Amazons? Started in '57... I'd say when they went to one piece grills, the '66 and later model years were the 'retro' Amazon series.
Volvo always has been a trend setting manufacturer :-)
--
-Matt I ♥ my ♂
|
|
-
|
|
|
Maybe Volvo has and you guys have been out of the loop. Check out this ad claiming to have a 2005 Vovo 240 for sale?????? http://canada.motoseller.com/c/sys.php?a=15&b=52919
Bruce
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Al
on
Wed Dec 19 01:40 CST 2007 [ RELATED]
|
|
Guys it's nostalgia. People talk about the great old cars and the fond memories.
That's all they were fond memories.
To get the aerodynamics of at least a Cd of .33 they would have to eliminate the 240 look. The Bertone is a possibility that they could get the aero numbers down into the mid-thirties on that one. It's all about fuel mileage today.
You might be able to do a 1800ES wagon and get the Cd down low enough. Again the cost of building it and is there a market large enough that is willing to pay 40K-45K for a retro 240 or 1800? NO. Ask Ford how much they lost on the $40K plus Thunderbird. Look at the Charger they're discontinuing it after this year. The GTO's lasted 3 years. Impala SS 3 years, I give the new Camaro no more than 5 years at the most.
People want the retro car they just are not willing to pay what is needed for the company to make a profit on the car.
I owned some the great cars of the sixties and seventies. They were a pain to keep running right. I had a 70 1/2 Z/28 and if you offered me a restored one or a low mileage 2002 Z/28 I would take the 2002 in a heart beat. It is a much much better car than the one built back in the sixties.
I loved my 65 GTO convertible also and again would I want it back sure would.
I would sell it in a minute for what some of these fools are paying for old muscle cars.
The 240 were great cars for the time. The early ones the gas mileage sucked and they rusted out. It wasn't until the mid-eighties that that got a handle on the rust problem and the gas mileage came up to the high 20's on the highway. People like them because they're different. It nastala nothing more.
My 97 960 is the pinnacle of Volvo rwds. Unless you have owned a 95-98 960/S90 you have no idea how backward the technology is on the 240's.
|
|
-
|
|
|
i don't need the car to have the 240 look. all i want is a low-cost RWD that's easy to maintain, safe, and has the fuel efficiency and power of the modern engines. oh yeah, it needs to be a wagon.
--
'91 240SE Wagon
|
|
-
|
|
|
Back in early 90s when Volvo decided to kill the 240, their reason was rising manufacturing costs and the fact that they couldn't make money on a $16K car in the US. Seventeen years later, I'm sure the same logic still applies except now their pain threshold seems to be $30K.
Face it, the 240 was quite a design and manufacturing feat to keep it alive that long, but the 240s long production run can only be blamed on bad financial analysis. Just something to think about!
jorrell
--
92 245 250K miles, IPD'd to the hilt, 06 XC70, 00 Eclipse custom Turbo setup...currently taking names and kicking reputations!
|
|
-
|
|
|
It was more a matter of high labor costs. All the manufacturing tooling (body stamping dies and the like) was long ago paid off, and then some. Unless it was all wearing out (and soon to require expensive replacement) Volvo should have moved production to one of the newly opened Eastern Bloc countries (Poland?, Lithuania?) decontented the car (no more sunroofs, power windows or other so-called luxury features, choice of four exterior colors, none of them metallic, all with the same interior, etc., etc., etc.) cut the price by 40% and run Hyundai out of the bottom end of the market with proven safety, reliability and durability at a rock-bottom price. If they had done this, the 240 might STILL be in production.
The problem is that Volvo had decided to position the company further "up-market" and this plan would have conflicted with their new (misguided) "luxury car" image. They should have stuck with the tried-and-true offering of a unique combinattion of safety, durability and performance that they had offered since the late 50s.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Volvo wanted to end the 240 around 86 when the 740 was ready,
but popular demand {and sales} kept it around until 93.
--
71-145-S ; 72-145-E ; 72-1800-ES
|
|
-
|
|
|
Volvo did exactly the same thing at least twice before---122 supposed to replace PV, but the PV lasted another 7 or 8 years due to continued demand, same with the 140, introduced in 1966, which was supposed to replace the 122, but the latter continued through 68 in the US, and through 70 in the rest of the world.
|
|
-
|
|
In the mind of the CFO of the Automaker is "What can we make that will BRING the customer back and YET we will profit? Hmmm... Build a reliable, endurance car that subsequent generations of the original owner will be inspired to seek our product through tested trust? hmmm no, Let's build a flimsy, flashy, over-advertised car, put a bunch of unnecessary do-dads in it and up the price and along with that we'll make sure certain expensive key parts fail and we'll convince the owner why it failed cuz it was in conjunction with a part that wears out over time anyway. We'll tell them it's maintenance free on certain elements thus making them think that everything but Gas and Washer fluid is unlimited... oh, by all these additions the inflated price will drive a higher status quo and thereby pressuring demand for the have-nots and influencing them to seek financing and we get the kickbacks.... yeah, ok, what we gunna call it? hmmm the 240 has a large trusted following... let's call it the New Retro 240 and we'll have newer body styles and revisions every 3 years!"
--
1992 - 244 - AW70 'Soft Ride' / 1987 - 244 - M47 (Hydra, turbo bars, bilstein, urethane bushings - now deceased)
|
|
-
|
|
|
Worse than that, John, I believe the base price of a 240 in '93 (that is, I have read it or heard it and the information is unverified) was somewhere over $20,000.
However, I think the 240 could one day make a comeback - think 'Mini Cooper.' Not the same old car, but something that strongly gives the impression of it while having all the modern features of any other car.
The real question we all need to ask ourselves is this: What really made the 240 such a great car? Sure it was a lot of things together, a LOT, but I think when you get to the heart of the matter, that unkillable, overbuilt engine was what made the car special.
--
'93 244: 'A' cam 4 deg. advanced, 25/22 sways, custom heim endlinks, poly bushings, and a lot more styling customization than I care to recount.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Sean:
We picked up or first Volvo new, an 89 244DL, power windows and heated seats were the "perks". We bought it in Jan of 90, sticker was 16.8K, walked in the door and the salesman said take of a thousand. This was one of the last 240s available without an air bag or ABS. So yes, base models in 90 were available for cheap.
What really cracks me up is how many of us "240 maintainers (myself included)" whine about leaking oil seals, bad suspension bushings, a dead blower fan aargh! after darn near 20 years and 200K+ miles! This is especially when you have S40s and V40s with fewer than 3 years and 30K miles burning out front CV joint axle assemblies! Heck, our 89 240 only had one true warranty repair, a throttle body adjustment (okay the dealer screwed it up), but after the warranty ran out, they replaced the front seat foam and did a radio swap (CR-712) free of charge. Pretty minor stuff if you ask me.
For what other reasons did the 240 survive so long? Perhaps it was a cultural thing towards the end, aka. the "Yuppi" phenomenon. Volvo had made a serious marketing push to drive home the safety point on all models while at the same time were pushing the "pseudo luxury" on the higher models. BTW, I wasn't a "Yuppi", my wife and I were "Dinks" if anyone remembers what those abbreviations mean!
Also, it was a great time of opportunity as a great presidential policy (aka Reagan) finally started to stitch the economy back together. Bush #1 carried that legacy for a while, so he helped a bit as well. Sorry, didn't mean to get political, but so many socio-political issues played into the success of the 240. All that didn't change one thing though, the 240 was bleeding Volvo financially dry in the end.
I will quit blabbing on an overkilled subject now... sorry, my bad.
jorrell
jorrell
--
92 245 250K miles, IPD'd to the hilt, 06 XC70, 00 Eclipse custom Turbo setup...currently taking names and kicking reputations!
|
|
-
|
|
|
BTW...Born To Be Wild
YUPPI.....Young Unemployed ????
DINKS......Double Income No Kidds
That's the best I could do.........Bruce
|
|
-
|
|
YUPPIE.....Young Upwardly Mobile Professional
I always saw it as also alluding to the yuppie being a yes-man.
--
Sven: '89 245 NA, 951 ECU, expanded air dam, forward belly pan reaches oem belly pan, airbox heater upgraded, E-fan, 205/65-15 at 50 psi, IPD sways, no a/c-p/s belt, E-Codes, amber front corner reflectors, aero front face, quad horns, tach, small clock.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Timeless classic and functional design that lasted 20 + years only to be outdone by the Porsche 911 that still lives on 40 + years later. Dan
|
|
-
|
|
|
Actually, my other car is very comparable to the 240 in this respect. Made for 20 years, with very few changes, mostly cosmetic, has a ridiculously overbuilt engine, runs forever, has a following. It is a Chevy Astro.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be BG
on
Sun Dec 23 15:41 CST 2007 [ RELATED]
|
|
We have two nominations for the longest-lasting car models:
1. The Volvo 240
2. Chevrolet Astro van
I will exclude the Porsche 911 because it really has changed drastically although the name lingers. But here are my three nominations:
1. Original Volkswagen Beetle, about 50-year production (just ended in Brazil)
2. Citroen 2CV, - 40-50 year production
3. The Austin car still being made as a Hindustan. Sorry, don't know the model.
Two more possibilities:
4. Morgan. Limited production, so maybe not a contender.
5. Avanti. Originally a Studebaker, then from other assembly companies. Is it still in production?
|
|
-
|
|
|
Most Volvos had very long production runs:
PV 444. Though the first prototype was shown in 1944, it was not until 1947 that limited production actually began, with full availability by 1950. The sedan was made (as a 544) until the end of 1965, the 210 wagon until 1969.
122 (Amazon) First shown in 1956, made until the end of 1970.
240. 1975-1993.
7/9 series. 1982-1999.
P1800. Shown in 58 or 9, first production with British-made body by Jensen, 1961, built until the end of 71, then two more years as a wagon.
However, lots of others have them beat, as far as longevity goes. Some examples:
The original Saab. The 92 was designed during the war and came out in 1950. It became the 93 in 1956, and that model evolved a few years later into the 96, which had a 20 year run from 1960 to 1980.
The Saab 99. 1969-1984 (rebadged "90" for the last few years)
The Saab 900. 1979-93. (later models kept the name but were GM crap)
The big Austin-Healey. 1953-67.
The MGB. 1962-80.
The Jaguar XJ6. 1968-86.
Ford Model T. 1908-27.
The Citroen Traction Avant. 1934-57.
Checker Marathon. 1958-82.
Porsche 911. The real air-cooled one. 1963-89.
The Citroen DS. 1956-74.
The Morris Minor. 1948-70.
The original Mini. 1959-2003, which seems to be the winner so far.
The Austin FX4 (London Taxicab) is up there too, but I don't know the exact years.
All of these were made by the original company, sometimes in the same factory throughout the model run. Though many of them underwent significant mechanical changes and upgrades over their production lifespans, they all remained the same vehicle, unlike, for example, the Toyota Corolla, a name which has been applied to at least a dozen unrelated models.
When you go international, things get a little more complicated. You have already mentioned three of the major ones. Many Fiats had their entire assembly lines exported when production ended in Italy, and were made for several more years in another country. The best known of these:
Lada. A 124 made in Russia. The Russians built an entire city to manufacture this car. It ran from the early 70s until shortly after the wall came down, when it was replaced by a newer FWD model.
Premier Padmini. a 1964-type 1100 (103) made in India. Started in the late 60s, ran until at least the mid-80s. Still in common use there as a taxi.
Zastava (a.k.a. Yugo) built several models of obsolete Fiats before Yugoslavia fell apart in the early 90s.
Other Fiat models continued long past their time in Egypt, Turkey and throughout South America. Several other countries similarly exported the tooling and unrelated companies built the cars. This was the case for:
The Hindustan Oxford. (the one you mentioned) Originally built by Morris, in the 50s, production started in India at some time in the 60s, and (I think) ended quite recently. They might actually STILL be making them.
Paykan. The Hillman Avenger by another name. It is Iran's national car. Not sure of production dates, but at least mid-70s until 90s.
Plenty of others as well.
Finally, cars that were built in other countries by subsidiaries of the main company:
Renault 4. First built in 1961. Production continued in Portugal well into the 90s.
Citroen 2CV. Designed and built as a prototype in 1939, but not actually built until ten years later. French production ran until the late 80s, they continued for a few more years in Portugal.
Finally, the hands-down winner----the VW Beetle. Definitive prototype shown in 1938. A few military examples during the war. Civilian production began in 1945. Last German-made sedans in 1977. However, the Beetle was assembled or manufactured in several other countries--Yugoslavia, Nigeria, South Africa and Thailand among them. The most important were Brazil, who built Beetles until 1987, and Mexico, where they ran until 2002. This equals an uninterrupted production run of 57 years, for a car that, by the end, was completely different from the original, but still very much the same. Almost none of the parts were interchangeable between 1945 and 2002, but the basic concept, shape, and dimensions remained the same throughout. The Type II (Transporter or Bus) has almost as long a history---first built in 1950, it ran until very recently in Mexico and Brazil.
I am sure there are others I have neglected to mention, but none of them beat the Beetle. I intentionally left out the Morgan and the Avanti, as they are both hand made in small quantities, and don't really qualify as "production"
|
|
-
|
|
|
Good post, Bryan.
I liken the Volvo 240 most to the VW Beetle. While both looked essentially the same throughout their runs, very few of the actual parts are the same from their early years to their last.
Both cars made it to every corner of the world and were made in massive numbers.
Both are easily recognized icons of their marque.
Both now have cult folowings (though VW wins by far) and people doing everything from professionally restoring them to turning them into drag cars.
I really do think that, like the Beetle, 240s will see an upswing in interest and price, especially now that they are getting harder to find in good condition. In the early 80's people were giving away their rusty VWs, now you can't buy a solid body for less than $6,000. In the last few years, people have been giving away their rusty 240s, but interestingly, late model 240s in great condition have begun selling on eBay for WAY over blue book prices.
Don't know if I like the trend or not - it means my car(s) are worth more and gaining popularity but it also means the goober down the street with a crusty 240 will no longer give it to me for painting his fence but will ask thrice what it's practically worth.
--
'93 244: 'A' cam 4 deg. advanced, 25/22 sways, custom heim endlinks, poly bushings, and a lot more styling customization than I care to recount.
|
|
-
|
|
Land Rover Series/Defenders have been in production for a very long time as well.
--
'63 PV544 rat rod, '93 Classic #1141 245 +t
|
|
-
|
|
|
True, but, strictly speaking, they aren't really cars, which is why I didn't mention them. They are utility vehicles, intended for use on poor or nonexistent roads, as opposed to cars, which are primarily for transporting passengers, as opposed to goods, on improved streets and highways.
Utility vehicles (about which there is nothing particularly sporting) are designed primarily for functionality, so apart from the occasional mechanical upgrade, there is little need to change them. The same is (or at least used to be) true of trucks, which once were defined as vehicles intended for the carriage of goods and materials, as opposed to being personal or family transportation.
While the Land Rover has indeed remained true to form (though by no means totally unchanged) for 60 years, there are several others that have endured nearly as long. The Jeep, for one. While the current US models only vaguely resemble the original M38A1 or CJ2, the original type, or a reasonable facsimile thereof is still made in several places in Asia. Mahindra in India makes (or used to make until quite recently) one, as did Mitsubishi. They are also made in the Philippines, where they form the basis of small buses known as Jeepneys. For obvious reasons, (safety/emissions requirements, and copyright issues) none were/are available in the United States. In the early 50s, Toyota produced their own version of the Jeep, which was called, logically enough, the Toyota Jeep. A lawsuit from Willys soon put an end to this model, which was promptly redesigned, with a Rover-like body and a very close copy of a Chevy 6 under the hood. It was known as the Land Cruiser, model FJ 40, which eventually became a legend in its own right, remaining in production until the early 80s, and recently inspiring a "retro" imitation, the FJ Cruiser.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be viagra
on
Tue Dec 25 14:46 CST 2007 [ RELATED]
|
|
860g6uk-u2jmsqm-tw6q2a9f-0 http://www.url4.net/C534C3#1
slots
[url=http://www.url4.net/982DCC#3]viagra[/url]
[url]http://www.url4.net/7EAAED#4[/url]
[http://www.url4.net/2775C0#5 phentermine]
"online casinos":http://www.url4.net/1AFDF9#6
[LINK http://www.url4.net/F56DF2#7]zoloft[/LINK]
|
|
-
|
|
|
Pageda:
I almost have to agree with you on this one, but there is a minor difference between the 240 and the 911 life cycle. Yes, Volvo changed a TON of things on the 240 over the years, but the fundamentals never changed, there are even parts like rear control arms and fuel tanks that swap throughout the years. On the 911, however, I think they are still on the 911 badge with the 998 model. What did Porsche do to the 911 over the years... simple, find me a single part number that the first 911 still shares with the 998 (aka 911), oh, and they went from air cooled to water cooled and even made the 911 look like a bad Boxter knock-off for a few years.
Just glad to know that Volvo didn't molest a model number like Mr. P. did! Note: Mr. P is Porsche!
jorrell
ps. The "Trabant" didn't change a single bolt for 30 years so just maybe it is the winner. Hmmm, why did so many of them literally wind up tossed in dumpsters after the wall fell? Could it have been an issue with the 2 stroke motor?
--
92 245 250K miles, IPD'd to the hilt, 06 XC70, 00 Eclipse custom Turbo setup...currently taking names and kicking reputations!
|
|
-
|
|
|
The Porsche 911 was introduced in 1963. It gradually evolved, though going through considerably more changes than the 240, until some time in the late 80s or early 90s, when it was replaced by the type 964. Prior to that, it was still very much the same car as the 1963 original--air cooled, torsion bar suspension, same size (though the fenders grew wider a couple of times) same glass, same headlights. The 964 was evolutionary, with a very similar shape, but coil spring suspension and available with AWD (Carrera 4) The 964 was soon replaced by the 993, then the 996, and finally the 998, which shares absolutely nothing with the original cars, except the name (the "911" badge was kept alive for marketing reasons) The lines are similar, but if you see a real 911 and a 996 or 998 side by side, the huge difference in size becomes apparent, comparable to that between the old and new Beetle, or Mini.
If you think this is bad, consider Toyota's bogus claim that the Corolla is the best selling car in the world, well ahead of the 21 million + (old-style) VW Beetles. This is simply not true, if you look a little closer. There have been a dozen or more distinctly different types of car with the Corolla nameplate--RWD, FWD, AWD, six or eight engines (OHV, SOHC, DOHC,16V), and little if any parts interchangeability between any of them.
The Trabant was 100% pure junk, but not simply because of the 2 stroke engine. It was junk because it was designed and built by Communists, trying to put a modern looking (which it was, when introduced in 1961) face on the old DKW. Contrast this to the early Saabs, which were the same concept, but executed instead by Swedish aircraft engineers, resulting in a wonderful little car that is simply unbeatable in winter conditions, and shares many of the things that make old Volvos so appealing. Sadly, the 96 (introduced in 1960, given a heavy lump of a Ford engine--V4, 4 stroke, in 1967) left the US market after 1973, as it was considered too difficult to make it comply with the 5 mph bumper requirement. The rest of the world could still buy a 96 until the end of 1980. One of the longest production runs ever, especially if you consider that much of the undercarriage and unibody dates back to the original Saab 92 of 1950.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Bryan:
Excellent historical detail, very enjoyable to read! One bright spot between the 240 and later 911s though is that Volvo never used a rubber coupled two part flywheel on the 240!
jorrell
--
92 245 250K miles, IPD'd to the hilt, 06 XC70, 00 Eclipse custom Turbo setup...currently taking names and kicking reputations!
|
|
-
|
|
|
Cuz Ford would take a genuine Swedish design and make it (in Mexico) with heavy American Steel
Use crappy Accents in the dash to look "aero" with VERY few buttons and knobs
Put it on a Ford FiveHundred Chassis and NOT offer AWD, only FWD
Cram a Supercharged 1.7L against an Experimental CVT (push buttons in dash)
They'll ruin it with putting CUPHOLDERS for every passenger
Put 18" rims on 12" rotors and only a sinle brake line to operate a single piston (non opposable)
9" drum in the rear mounted to Cast Aluminum control arms
Headlights will be made of the SAME plastic used on every Taurus
Central Locking? what is that?
Spare tire would be UNDERNEATH the car
Coin tray would be deleted
Bench seat used in front to make for more shoulder room
Chrome, Chrome, Chrome EVERYWHERE (Automakers' idea of "Retro")
And the all time waste of electronis:
The coded entry key pad on the driver door!
--
1992 - 244 - AW70 'Soft Ride' / 1987 - 244 - M47 (Hydra, turbo bars, bilstein, urethane bushings - now deceased)
|
|
-
|
|
|
If it were put on the Ford Five Hundred (now Taurus) chassis that would be good because that chassis is actually a modified Volvo P2 (1st gen S80) chassis.
While I agree the key pad on the door seems silly (and doesn't appeal to me at all), you'd be shocked to see how much demand there is for it from "traditional" Ford customers, which is why it's making a comeback. Believe me, Ford wouldn't just add that feature if people weren't going to pay for it. Not saying it belongs on a Volvo, just that there are people who want it on their Ford/Lincoln.
Zack
1980 245DL M46 287k
1988 745T+ M46 227k
|
|
-
|
|
|
this has been discussed to death - however, if ford did it i would be (my take):
FWD
Sitting on an escape platform
have drum brakes in the rear
be 240 in name only
be crappy
underpowered and sloppy handling
--
1993 Volvo 245 with a banged up nose
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be bmwguy22
on
Tue Dec 18 10:35 CST 2007 [ RELATED]
|
|
sorry, I didn't know this..
"underpowered and sloppy handling"
that's funny! hahahhahaaaa!
|
|
-
|
|
|
I laughed myself writing that one. "underpowered and sloppy handling" will be the only thing the new one would have in common with the old one !!
--
1993 Volvo 245 with a banged up nose
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be bmwguy22
on
Tue Dec 18 19:18 CST 2007 [ RELATED]
|
|
hahaha! my thoughts exactly :D
|
|
-
|
|
|
If you want underpowered try a diesel Volvo or old diesel VW. Handling is adequate with good shocks and IPD sways. Dan
|
|
-
|
|
|
The (1982) 240 Volvo diesel was a VW!
--
If it needs to be maintained, repaired or replaced on a 1990 240, I've probably done it. '90 240DL, 252K looking forward to 300K badge (or sticker??). >>You haven't really worked on a car until you draw blood<< :-}
|
|
-
|
|
|
Not to mention all the new safety features they would have to incorporate. And yes, it would most likey be FWD, however, a 4WD 240 would be kick ass in the snow!!. Plus it wouldn't be a 240 without the redblock.
I agree it would be awesome to have a new 240, but when i mean new, i don't want anything to change, except maybe better manual transmissions, and turbo-charged 86+ styles.
Of course a nice sound system would compliment it well, and glass moonroofs. Hmm, idk maybe it would be nice for a newer twist now that i think about it.
Still think i would be completely dissapointed with it in the end.
The C30 takes somehwhat after the P1800 hatchback with the horseshoe rear-end.
--
89' 744ti, 106K miles, slushbox : 87' 745ti, 229K miles, m46!
|
|
-
|
|
|
The C30 has the same wheelbase as a 240, just about the same weight, and TWICE the horsepower. It also has less room in the cargo area than the 1800ES it is pretending to be. I wouldn't want one.
The Red Block is indeed the heart and soul of all real Volvos (with the exception of the pre WWII flathead sixes) I would have a much higher regard for the 850 and its derivatives if only they had kept the good old engine, adding a cylinder if they really thought it was necessary (yielding a B290F, 5 cylinder 2.9 L SOHC---now wouldn't that have been something, especially as a Turbo) but keeping the non-interference design and the legendary rugged durability, neither of which is a characteristic of the 4-valve aluminum engines. If they had done this, I would probably be driving an 850 now, and would not be worried about what I'm going to do when 240s and 740s are no longer readily available.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Let's not forget, if Ford did build one, and based it on the Escape platform, and added all the crap that they think needs to be on an automobile, it would cost about the same as a loaded XC-90. And would be a bigger pig.
|
|
-
|
|
|
S40 and V50 are probably about as close as we are going to get.
--
'63 PV544 rat rod, '93 Classic #1141 245 +t
|
|
-
|
|
|
"S40 and V50 are probably about as close as we are going to get."
**gasp** they are NOTHING at all like a 240. NOTHING!!!
I brought up the other night to Sarah that we might consider selling her S40 if the maintenance and repairs to 100k miles are obscene (ie, more than $1000/year, which I think is being extremely generous for a car currently with 45k on the clock).
Suffice it to say, I can't convince her, until it's her footing the bill.
I put about a thousand a year into 4 240's and they're still going strong, and improving annually.
Jim
|
|
-
|
|
|
I wasn't saying they are the same. I was jsut saying they occupy the same market niche. And I can't see Volvo/Ford spending lots of money to come up with a model in the same market segment that is likely more expensive to produce (i.e. not FWD, not based on a FWD platform shared among 3 or 4 brands and huge production volumes). It's not like many of us 240 drivers are just loaded with cash and waiting anxiously to buy a $40K new 240 if they produce it. What sales such a new model would garner would probably be mostly cannibalized from the S40/V50/S60/V70 lines anyhow. Who would do such a thing? Well, GM does all the time, but that's beside the point.
The 240 was a spendy car to produce. In 1993, it sold for a base price of around $21K. For a car that was 18 years old from the A-pillar forward, and 26 years old from the A-pillar back. For a car with few modern conveniences, slow, not maintenance free like the Accord/Camry (although it can eventually outlast them, they do tend to provide a more trouble free ownership experience over the first 150K miles). So it was expensive to produce, and a bit of a tough sell. The 740/940's were designed to be a bit cheaper to make, plus include more luxury touches and thus sell for more money.
I think we'll see affordable smallish RWD sedans and wagons from the japanese before we'll ever see one from Volvo again.
--
'63 PV544 rat rod, '93 Classic #1141 245 +t
|
|
-
|
|
|
Chrysler is trying to bring more RWD models back into the mix, but their future does not look good - again...
|
|
-
|
|
|
hello
a friend works at a local volvo dealer (22 yrs) told me he never seen any other volvo towed in on a flat bed as often as the 40 series.
My other friend who worked for volvo (15 yrs)couldnt believe the 40 series was towed in more frequent than the 850.
i hope not to offend anyone.
i will keep the old ones.
good luck
mike
|
|
-
|
|
|
Retro? Let's ge really retro, and let someone re-issue the 544. The US bureaucracy would go nuts, but I would buy one if it came anywhere near the original. They were fun, handled well, and were tough; really, that's all I want from a car.
|
|
-
|
|
|
It is a nice idea at first. However for a retro design to sell it has to be a design that most people know. The general public (and many current Volvo drivers) have no clue what my PV544 is. The most common guess is a WWII era domestic sedan. Secondly, it would be impossible to build something so simple. My PV makes my 240 look complicated.
Bob
|
|
-
|
|
|
Don't you have to just love the way the entire PV wiring diagram fits on a 2-page insert in the owner's manual? Very uncrowded, too. In the Bentley manual for my 240, the wiring diagram takes up 6 very crowded pages.
--
'63 PV544 rat rod, '93 Classic #1141 245 +t
|
|
-
|
|
|
Yeah, Bob, I must admit to dreaming in technicolour. Still, the thought of a car with substantial metal, a lack of electronics, good handling in the snow, basic technology, makes me very happy. I have considered going down into California or Arizona to find a 544 or 145, so that I can end my days driving a car I completely understand... Some dream, eh?
|
|
-
|
|
|
I agree! I've owned most of the old Volvo's at one point or another, 122, 1800, 140. But my PV was (is) the most fun to drive. Of course, now it's all souped up, but it was just more nimble and agile feeling even when it hap 90 hp, skinny tires, and leaned *way* over in the corners.
--
'63 PV544 rat rod, '93 Classic #1141 245 +t
|
|
-
|
|
|
Maybe when ford sells Volvo (rumor has it BMW is buying it up) They'll actually go back to making decent cars.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be BG
on
Sun Dec 23 15:50 CST 2007 [ RELATED]
|
|
Tata Motors may be the highest bidder. Don't laugh. In 20 years, Tata will be a serious international car maker. Ford will probably be gone or a subsidiary of someone like Tata by then.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I wouldn't put much credence in that rumor (specifically the BMW part).
And even then, the 1 series could have been a wonderful 2002tii Redux, but instead it falls flat as a 3 series with a few inches chopped out of the wheel base. hardly any cheaper, hardly any lighter, same thing as the 3 series basically, overengineered, overpriced cars that no sane person would own out of warranty. I love the older BMW's, but the new ones have just gone way overboard in trying to keep in front of the japanese with gadgetry. Think the wonky Magnetti Marelly electronic throttle modules on the some 2000+ Volvo's are a bad idea? Wait until the Valvetronic on a BMW goes haywire out of warranty.
--
'63 PV544 rat rod, '93 Classic #1141 245 +t
|
|
-
|
|
|
Honda Civic and Accord - and maybe Toyota Corolla/Camry - seem to be the new rwd Volvos, imho.
Don't get mad at me. I know they're not built like a tank help you survive nearly any collision, and the engines aren't overbuilt like the red block is. And they're fwd, like nearly everything else produced in the last fifteen years.
But they keep on running, and there are loads of them in junkyards to salvage parts from. And they're good on gas. And, if you study the "likelyhood of dying in the car" statistics at iihs.org, they are among the safer cars out there. So they're trusty, long running cars that are inexpensive to own.
There are reasons I see dark skinned, disenfranchised, hard working young men cruising the junkyard finding parts for these cars. Sometimes it's their job, but it looks like more often they're fixing a car for their buddy, their girlfriend, their wife, their cousin, or their mother in law.
--
Sven: '89 245 NA, 951 ECU, expanded air dam, forward belly pan reaches oem belly pan, airbox heater upgraded, E-fan, 205/65-15 at 50 psi, IPD sways, no a/c-p/s belt, E-Codes, amber front corner reflectors, aero front face, quad horns, tach, small clock.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Great points, Sven's Maintainer.
I think, unless the retro thing dies dramatically very soon, we'll see some attempt at it. I doubt Ford could pull it off, but someone could. Around my way the people who drive 240s fall into three distinct groups: the old-timers (white guys mostly, 50+), recent immigrants of all ages (Haitians and Liberians mostly) who appreciate the sturdiness, and hipsters who appreciate the irony of driving something so boxy that harkens back to the faraway 1980s. The latter crowd is the only one that gives me a thumbs-up when they see me in my wagon at the light-- it's a fashion statement.
That said, that hipster crowd is nothing if full-bore consumerist. Volvo would be stupid to ignore that market. I can see them rolling out a MINI-like wagon-only retromobile "inspired by the legendary 240." Think VW Fox (small, 4-banger) with just enough luxe for the discerning consumer. Safety features would be based on whiz-bang technology rather than durable box and would be "rugged" in the same way the Honda Element is rugged-- rubber interior for wiping down, Spartan styling...
Sure, most of you guys would scoff, but there'd be a market. Look at the Scion xB! Squash that puppy a bit and there you go!
|
|
-
|
|
|
Haha, up in my area we have almost the same groupings. The old guys, the fresh immigrants who picked up a brick for $500, and the group I might fall into. Lots of folks who dont want / cant afford the horribly overpriced new cars which are more likely to have the clock go bad and stop the car in the process, the rediculous payments/insurance related to such vehicles, and the fact that when I buy a car, unless I can get 400-500k out of it, its trash. My '84 244, Kino, has needed one thing in the 5 years I've owned it: a $9 thermostat. Which I could install in under 30 minutes. Good luck on most newer vehicles. I know my friends and even random folks at the local bagel place where volvo's tend to appear in packs have told me roughly the same story. Replace a cheap part here, minor tweak there, and they just dont quit. Mileage just aint a concern with em, compared with anything else, really. Mines getting the IPD treatment now so its just getting better and better.
I absolutely hope that they DO NOT try a "retro" version. Bleh. It'll end up still looking like every new vehicle: a jellybean. Not to mention people these days wont touch a wagon with a 10ft pole. Otherwise, it'd be "wrong wheel drive" :P Sorry, I'll take my DL. My radio is the fanciest accessory to go wrong and if it does, another $99 CD deck will do the trick nicely.
God, thats a bad image in my head cgreene, a "240" XB.... ewww.
Funny point: I can see someone crazy like myself swapping a red block INTO a new retro-esque "240". Mileage be damned, fancy gadgetry thats going to screw me when it breaks be damned, if 1/2 of my engine components can be dead or dying and the engine still runs, thats how a car oughta be. More like a tank. :P
|
|
-
|
|
|
If I ever had to have a new car; I would be immediately looking at ways to make it more like an old car to make it more palatable.
"Let's see, I'll start by stripping out all this plastic... oh sh#t!, there's no car left! Well, maybe I can get rid of all these useless features...high power stereo, power steering, power brakes, automatic transmission, power windows, power everything...wow! the car is 1000 lbs. lighter now! That's how car makers can make their cars get better gas mileage. Gee', it weighs about the same as my 122 does now; maybe it doesn't need a 200+ HP engine to get out of it's own way now. I really don't need 0-60 in 6 seconds when I'm sitting in traffic all the time anyway..."
New cars suck...
Bill
|
|
-
|
|
|
I've been wondering that for a long time - everyone is screaming, "We need better mileage! Won't somebody please think of the children?" but not one yuppie will give up their precious power steering, A/C, automatic tranny, etc. I could take any given new car and increase the mileage well past the window sticker estimate by tearing out that 1000+ lbs. of effete power-sucking trash.
--
'93 244: 'A' cam 4 deg. advanced, 25/22 sways, custom heim endlinks, poly bushings, and a lot more styling customization than I care to recount.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Little Jimmy has a candid conversation with Mr. Car Company and it goes something like this...
LJ: I want to buy a high quality car that's safe, simple, reliable, economical, fun to drive and pretty to look at.
Mr.CC: Well, son, that's a pretty tall order, that combination of things just won't work in a new car.
LJ: Can't you leave off some stuff that I don't need, like the power steering and power seats and the cup holders?
Mr.CC: Well, I'm going to be a little politically incorrect here; it's because people have gotten kinda... big, these days. We had to put in those teeny tiny little steering wheels so people's stomachs wouldn't get squished, and we had to put in the power steering because people weren't strong enough to steer the car with the little teeny tiny steering wheel.
The power seats...well, folks just couldn't move their own weight without a little help anymore. I've got some good news about the cup holders though; we're going to get rid of them. All new models are going to come with feeding tubes now. Much safer, since folks won't have worry about spilling their coffee or dropping their Big Mac in their lap.
We set up a deal with all the major gas stations so you can fill your belly while your filling your tank. We even got a special incentive from President Bush as part of his bio-fuel initiative; see that hole in the middle of each seat bottom?
LJ: Gosh, what are those for?
Mr.CC: Those are for our new biomass conversion hydrogen makers; after you fill up with our feeding tubes you can do your business while you're tooling down the road, and will actually help fuel your car. How's that for green?
Why, you won't ever want to leave your car, especially with our 1000 watt Dolby 5.1 surround sound entertainment center and projector that lets you watch only the latest movies right on your windshield.
LJ: How about the air conditioning; can you leave that off? I can just open my windows...
Mr.CC: Oh, no, you cant do that, it's bad for the fuel economy; we would never be able to meet the new CAFE standards if people drove around with their windows down. It's a liability issue too; morbidly obese people sweat a lot more when they get hot. We don't want to get a class action lawsuit against us because a handful of people got heatstroke while they were driving in our cars.
LJ: Can I change my own gears? I don't need an automatic transmission.
Mr.CC: Nobody wants manual transmission anymore; simply not enough hands free anymore. How is a young lady supposed to put her makeup on and text message and stuff her face and read a magazine all at the same time if she has to change gears too?
Son; you have to wake up, you just can't get the kind of car you're looking for.
LJ: Gee, My Grandfather had a car like that a long time ago... maybe I'll get one of those...
Mr.CC: I don't think I like that kind of talk, son; it's un-American...
Bill
|
|
-
|
|
|
VERY, VERY FUNNY! And oh, so true! I bought a new econobox, and it spends half its time telling me that I don't know how to drive: beep, beep, do up your seatbelt, beep, beep, the keys are in the ignition, beep, beep... I asked the dealer to stop the din, and he told me that he couldn't without interfering with the computer, and that pulling out the beeper would interfere with the computer. C'mon, I have been driving for 50+ years, if I choose to move the car in my yard, why do I have to listen to that damn beeper??? I do not need power steering, I ordered without a/c, I ordered without auto trans, I had to take the damn radio.
I look on the new vehicles with a lot of contempt: a local fellow has a truck and he is impressed all over the place because when he uses HIS key, the truck adjusts the seat to his personal setting, and sets the radio before he ever gets in! What a pile of silly rubbish!!! It is a bleedin' TRUCK! Ya know, for hauling stuff around!
I pulled over half a ton of crap out of my last pickup that I did not need. It got better mileage (25%), it carried an extra half ton of product without overloading, it handled much better. I don't expect the industry (even Volvo) to change this stupidity anytime soon...
|
|
-
|
|
|
New cars suck...
Bill
AMEN!
|
|
|
|
|
