Hi All,

I am looking to replace one of the aging RWD Volvos with a 940 turbo. Currently, I drive an '86 244 with 360K miles, an '83 245 with 280K miles, and a '72 142E with 450K miles.

I've kept all cars in good cosmetic and mechanical condition, but the '83 has some severe rust issues and it can't stay running for more than a few months at a time - despite the fact that I have, piece-by-piece over time, rebuilt the suspension, steering/front end, and electrical systems. I am thinking about keeping the '83 for parts and dirty jobs (like hauling landscaping stuff for my yard) but otherwise retiring it.

The '86 is the best running, and most comfortable, car in the group. I want to keep this one for as long as I can and the mileage is starting to get "up there." This will go from daily driver status to weekend/special trip status.

The '72 142E is a family car, originally owned by my Uncle, that I all but restored from the ground up. These days, I drive it "for fun" when the urge hits, but it's not in full rotation.

So, I am thinking about a '94 or '95 940 Turbo for my commute to work. What is the driving experience like compared to a 240? Maintenance? Cost of running? I drove a 740 once and didn't really like it. It felt like...well...a small, compact car. It did not have the 'bank vault' feeling going down the road that I get in my 240's and 142E. I also wasn't a fan of the ride - it was damped better than the 240s but I felt this gave up something in road feel. Friends and family have said that my 240's rides are "jarring" and at times uncomfortable (w/Bilsteins and poly bushings) but I like it that way - I feel like I'm driving a car and not an appliance.

I will say that the 740 I drove was much quieter, more refined, and felt more powerful than my 240's. Of course, this was only one car - my sample size is too small to draw any real conclusions.

I have a 144 that has been in the family for 38 yrs, briefly had a 1991 240, and been driving the 940 light pressure turbo for the past 5 years. The 940 is by far my favorite. It is the smoothest, roomiest, most powerful and most comfortable of the other 2 Volvos. I am very surprised that Volvo could build in more refinement and squeeze out more power from the primitive chassis and powertrain that has been in service in the 244 since 1974.

I love the 144 and the 240, but I view the 940 like modern version of the 240. It shares the same powertrain and most other parts, and I do not feel that it is any lesser of a Volvo compared to the earlier cars. Its reliability record has been flawless and its still daily driven. Long interstate trips are a breeze. Maintainance is about what you would pay for the 240, unless some major turbo components require replacing.

I also have a brand new Camry. It certaily lacks character, the seats are not as nice, and high speed stability is not up to the mark. The wife drives it most of the time while I prefer to motor around in the 940.

And I have also considered replacing it with an S80, but those are a new breed of Volvos that I just cant get used to.

Hope this helps.
--
1974 144GL, 1996 940 GL LPT

hello all
i have had 240s 740s 940s. turbo and non.
now i have a 94 945 and 95 944 both turbos and spend much less time fixing them than the 240.
I like them all but the ones i have now i like the best. and for around a thousand bucks you can make them get up and go.
there is something about the 240 that just says volvo.
good luck
Mike

If you want a comfortable, quitet smooth ride DD commuter car with power to spare for those freeway ramps, get a 95+ 960/S/V90.
And if you and the family want to do a road trip, there's no other equal in the Volvo family than the 965, and I did have a nice '05 V70 2.5T loaded, the 965 was far better cruiser.

Well after about 40 240s over the years, I finally picked up my first 7/9 series--a 92 945t. I've spent most of the time I've had it trying to make it ride, drive and handle more like a 240. I swapped in an M46, put on all the chassis braces I could find, IPD bars, etc. The M46 made a world of difference in the personality of the car. I love it, but it still doesn't have that same sort of "soul" that the 240s have. There's something very honest about the personality of the machinery of the 240s that's much more muted in the 7/9s. It's tough to describe exactly, or to put your finger on, but it's seems like something we can all agree on anyhow.

The wiring is much more modern in the 7/9 series. The 240s feel a lot lighter on their feet--especially if you're comparing stock suspension to stock suspension. The 7/9s are definitely quieter going down the road. Heavier/deader steering in the 7/9s. The 240s have a well known list of design flaws (blower motor, etc.). The 7/9s have poorly designed heater control valves and brake calipers. There's a bunch of fiddly little water and oil lines down by the turbo. The cam driven distributor isn't the greatest idea ($60 cap versus $12 cap). The AC system on the 7/9 is miles ahead of the 240. I'd say the seats are equally comfortable between the two series. The turbo power is addictive, but you'll never coax 31mpg out of a 7/9 like you can with a properly maintained and driven 240. Cost of ownership is maybe a hair more in the 7/9s, but nowhere near what the FWD Volvos cost.

If you're looking for a highway commuter, a late build 940t is a very good choice. You could argue it's the best Volvo ever built--98% of the critter comforts of the later white block cars with 98% of the mechanical simplicity of the earlier red block cars--but it's absolutely true that they don't have the soul of the 240s. Then again, you could go drive your neighbor's Accord or Camry and suddenly that 940 is quite the trip!

Best,
Afton

'68 220, '88 245 (for sale!), '92 245, '92 945t, '98XC

I agree with the above. My comment some years ago on this BB on my impressions of our 1994 940(N/A) was: "...feels like a Swedish Buick".
--
Bob: son's XC70, dtr's '94-940, my 81GL, 83-DL, 89-745(V8) and 98-S90. Also 77-MGB and some old motorcycles.

I loved my 1990 760 Turbo wagon (basically a 940 turbo SE). The acceleration is addictive and I still got 22-24MPG on my daily commute (mostly highway, no ethanol). AC worked well but the heat could not strip the skin off your bones like a 240 heater.

That being said, the 240's are more of a drivers car and the 7/9-series would need a lot of work to handle almost as well as a stock 240. Still fun to attack a back road but it is a the slow in, fast out approach to turns instead of the perfect placement and momentum conservation of an older Volvo.

I still find the 240 seats more comfortable and I like the simplicity of the 240 cabin better, but the blower motor replacement makes all those points irrelevant. The 7/9-series is worlds quieter on the highway. I despise the electric seat mechanism in the vast major of the 7/9-series cars. All 240's seem to have a special feel about them...yes the infamous personality...that my one newer RWD Volvo did not have.

I've had 15 Volvo's, 10 2's and 5 7/9's. I currently have a 91 and 92 7 wagon and a 93T sedan. I really like the later cars, although the older ones have a soft spot for sure and I sometimes think of getting another.
But then I think of the heater fan, and the fuse block, and the window cranks, and the rear bushings, and the front bushings, and the rust in the back, and the wind noise, and the angle of the windshield, and the air, or not...
And I get in my cars and drive them, comfortably, and two quickly, one soon fairly fast. Yes they may be known as grandpa cars but not everywhere... friends have Qships, just regular looking cars, one is a 90 740 wagon, but it outdoes most of the ricer cars with ease, and is far safer doing so.

They are roomier both in the occupant area and the engine compartment, so even easier to work on IMO, but they need less attention it seems.

These may be not quite what you're thinking of using one for, but they are capable of it. It's terribly fun to surprise some people.
The beginning is a fascinating story I think, of how an enduring platform came to be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf8xBx8J1aY
then there's the fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apib8sv5kao&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hmCm8g96YA&feature=fvwp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY787zXaIFk&feature=related

Your conclusions about the 740 are pretty much on target--and applicable to the 940. I've been driving Volvos since the early 70's--going through 544,122,1800S,140,160,240 models and had a '92 940 turbo on the road for 15k miles before it got wrecked while parked. It was in GREAT shape - a fine road car-quiet, comfortable and fast -- but the 740/940 series is bigger, heavier and not as well balanced as the older models. They feel like an old man's car-- a better version of an American RWD car--and you sit low like one too. I was sad to see my car come to such an end but it wasn't my cup of tea anyway. -- Dave