Hello folks.

I am eyeing up two different volvos with the intention of joining the RWD brick club.

I'm hoping to pick the brains of anyone who's owned a similar one to either and decide which to go for. I don't yet know enough about 900s to know which would be best, or even if either are worth having.

First one is this 960, seems pretty good but no pics of the inside, rear or passenger side of the car so maybe it's cheap for a reason.
http://www.sella.co.nz/motoring/cars/volvo/jw40gj/

Secondly is this 940 Turbo, seems overpriced compared to the other and doesn't have as many features but it is a proper brick and from a bit of reading here it sounds like the B-series 4 cylinder is held in much higher regard than the 6 cylinder? Why's that?
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=519102803

Cheers for any input, looking forward to your reply.

I'd go with the 940. Would rather the 940 be without turbo. If the automatic transmission checks out with fresh pink ATF, bright and clear brake and other fluids, and either car comes with comprehensive records.

Verify the car DOES come equipped with airbags.

Your fuel and carbon or VAT or consumptive tax should be lower with the 940 if it does have a higher purchase price. I'm not informed of NZ laws regard private vehicle taxation and fees.

Please refer to http://www.brickboard.com/FAQ/700-900/.

Specifically:
http://www.brickboard.com/FAQ/700-900/BuyingUsed7xx.htm
http://www.brickboard.com/FAQ/700-900/HighMileageVehiclePrevMaint.htm

(Please place emphasis on safety systems such as brakes, steering, lighting, airbags, and the like, first. The brickboard like all auto forums place going before stopping. Stopping the car is the most important feature you want!)


The 1994 940 Turbo estate is a better vehicle to own than that 960 as:
- The 940 would be somewhat less complicated.
- The 940 may not offer the luxury of the 960, yet you have fewer luxury systems to go haywire (usually switches with carboned-up contacts are the culprit, when the computer logic function fails, that luxury 10-position seat may not move).
- The Porsche/Volvo white block I6 quattrovalve (a 24 valve, to use a VW phrase) engine is a fantastic thing. Yet the engine suffered from manufacturing problems (engine block may leaks coolant through pinholes from bad casting).
- The Volvo engine you have in NZ, the B230 ET (high compression, fuel injected turbo), with good care and use, is a reliable engine of incredibly stout design and reliability. Research issues of turbo on 1994 Volvo four-cylinder engines.
- So many more reasons I'll stop here.

You'll have a period of inspection, research, diagnostic, and wear items replacement on either Volvo.

Wear item replacement on your new 1994 Volvo may cost between 1000-1500$ NZ (doing your own work) to 2x or 4x that if you use a mechanic.

May I suggest waiting for a normally aspirated RWD Volvo? A 1993 240 estate? Or perhaps another Volvo 940 that is normally aspirated? Doubtful you have manual transmissions in your 900 series and newer RWD Volvos as with models in the states? The last year of the 940 was in 1998. (Last year in US, stupidly, was 1995 940 models). I understand the 1996 through 1998 940s are quite good.

Hope that helps.

MacDuffed the Middle Lander.

Is it just me, or does photo #6 in the 940 ad appear to show a brake issue? To my eye, it looks like the swept area is significantly smaller than the diameter of the rotor. Also, the seller took the photos at the end of September, so he's probably getting tired of it sitting in his inventory.

kittysgreyvolvo:

Thanks for the info, give an often overlooked point of view on the whole affair.

I'm not massively fussed about driving an auto unless there's an inherent problem with Volvo's auto gearboxes. In my opinion that's what you want in a highway cruiser like this. Would definitely consider a manual swap if a good gearbox popped up cheap though. A 240 would be awesome as they look much better and are even simpler mechanically but also extremely rare over here - the only one I could find had a Chevy 305 V8 in it and is in pretty much perfect condition, but also way out of budget.

nick 2012:

Thanks for pointing that out, will have to ask the seller about it. I'm hoping to talk them down a bit based on high kms, broken gear selector knob, seat covers (hiding crappy seats?) and the fact that it's been on the lot for a while and they may just want to move it on. Haven't made any enquiries yet as I wanted to get all the facts first, and you've all been very helpful with that :)

Couple of questions about you and your needs:

Do you do all your own work on the cars you own or do you plan to on this Volvo?

Why do you want a RWD Volvo (towing, cargo, easy of maint, durability, etc).

For me, the choice is instant and simple...the 940 SW. Station wagons in US demand a significant premium for a reason and suspect the same is true in NZ. They are just that much more useful. The red-block turbo is easier to work on and is a non-interference engine so if a timing belt breaks you are mildly inconvenienced (unless somehow the specs are different for your market) but with the 960 it is significant repair.

Another thing to think about is availability of spare parts. In the US, 940 actually had a shorter production run that the 960. That would seem to point to the 960 but there are so many common parts between the 2/7/9 red-block cars that the 940 has more spares available. If the 960 has IRS that will make it handle better but it is an added expense of ownership.

So far I love my 1993 940 NA wagon. I have a 1990 760 turbo wagon in the past (basically the same as what you pictured but an older style dash). Great highway cruisers but not as nimble as the 240's. Moderate amount of luxury gear for their time but neither come close to a modern car. Extremely durable, moderately reliable and simple to maintain and repair.

Cheers for the reply.

I was mainly looking at a RWD Volvo for its comfort, practicality and sleeper potential. I also think they look great. Reliability is a plus but I see that as a bit of a given for any modern and inherently well-designed car. Pretty much anything will go on forever if you maintain it properly. A non-interference engine would give pretty nice peace of mind though. Easy to maintain is a big plus as well - I do the simple stuff myself and am mates with the owner of a good garage for the more involved jobs.

Only real concern is whether the 2.3 would be a bit underpowered given the wagon's weight? Or is that not the case with a turbo model?

960's are universally known in the states among those who know rwd volvos as junk or just above junk.

yes they are more powerful and more luxurious and that is where their edge ends.
the engine is an evolutionary dead end. the transmission is electronically controlled. the car is overly complex and a nightmare to repair when it breaks down.

yes a NA volvo 940 wagon IS underpowered. i own one, love it but recognize this reality.

a turbo powered 940 is anything BUT underpowered. easy to fix, lots of fun to own and drive.

"960's are universally known in the states among those who know rwd volvos as junk or just above junk."

Can't agree with you on that broad a statement. The 960 is as complex as the 850's of the same era but easier to work because the engine runs the right way in the engine bay. It has a much more modern powertrain which is both good and bad.

It is more difficult to work on that a red-block and both the tranny and engine are less forgiving of neglect, but they are not bad cars. Would still take one over most other wagon offerings of the same era save a BMW 5-series and Mercedes E-series wagons. Sedans...not so much. I can think of a lot of sedans I would rather have (available in the US) that a 960 sedan.

The wagon weighs about 3300#'s and puts out just shy of 200 hp (you can convert to KG and KW) stock in most countries (190 in the US). That is EASILY tweaked but the guys on turbobricks will help with that. Most consider 300 hp the limit of the AW transmission but by that time you are getting into serious mods.

So for very little money you can get close to 10#'s per HP which used to be the gold standard but is now pretty commonplace.

Seems like the turbo wagon would be the best choice hands down then. This one's fairly far away (about an 8 hour drive) so I'd want to be pretty sure about it before going to have a look, what should I look out for with these cars? Any signs I should look for to tell whether they've been looked after, or any questions to ask the seller that will give insight there? This one's pretty high km's obviously so what should I make sure has been replaced recently?

Will definitely make sure there's no rust and everything works.

Thanks for the good info guys.

Check the FAQ's for the used car buying guide.

Also, consider a third-party inspection before you make the drive or flight out there to look at the car. In the US, this is a $75-125 charge that is well worth the money.

That is not high KM's or miles for one of these cars. That is about mid-life.

All rubber parts are suspect due to age and/or wear. All coolant related hoses should be replaced immediately if not new and OEM. Consider a preventative radiator replacement as the only thing that kills AW7X transmission with alarming regularity (but still rarely) is coolant in the tranny fluid.

Sounds pretty standard then really. I find it hilarious when people say to never buy a car over x kms (usually 150k). Any inherently well-designed car will last as long as you want it to provided it's looked after. I've owned a Honda Prelude with 260k and a Triumph 2000 with an estimated 400k so definitely no stranger here.

If it's as good as it looks this 960 could be too good to pass up, but I'd like to ask a question about its engine and see if it would make an awesome budget sleeper as well.

According to wikipedia the 2.9 I6 in there was also used in the later T6 Volvos which came turbocharged. Does this mean if I find a wrecked T6 I could grab all the turbo bits off it and then, having done a Stage 0 on the 960, fit all that gear straight to the engine, tune it and be done with it? Would the parts all bolt up?

Cheers :)

Anything is possible but I do not mess with the white block cars personally...I prefer the durability and simplicity of a red block.

What year were the 960 engines prone to contamination in the aluminum block, leading to cracks?

I also have heard too many problems about exhaust manifolds on 960's being wonky.

Stay away from the 92-95's. The consensus seems to be that the 96 960's are the best of that line. What I don't understand is why the 5 cylinder variant of that engine is so good and the 6 cylinder's can be troublesome. I believe the 96+ sixes are good engines.

For more info on the porous blocks here you go...

http://www.brickboard.com/FAQ/700-900/960_90Info.htm#Porous960B6304Blocks

--
95 855 GLT Sportwagon 214k, sold - 90 244 DL 300k