Let me first say that I currently own an 85 245, with a manual.

I've wanted to buy an 1800 for years, but I think that might not be in the cards anytime soon (at least, in my price range).

I just found a 164 that is for sale relatively close to me, but with one issue.

It's an automatic.

Well, not sure if that's an issue per-say. I don't know much about the Automatics in the 164's (it's a 75 if that matter). Are they sluggish? weak? crap?

Or are they just your normal automatic transmission from the 70's, and neither good nor bad?

I don't expect to be a speed demon (it's not in my character), but I don't want to be driving a car that struggles to go to highways speeds even if it's in tip top shape.

I also know that personal preferences make a difference. I'm just wondering if there is a red flag reason to avoid automatics from that vintage

Thanks

I have had several friends who got their first old car and a few months a much nicer one just fell in their lap.

Get your car, care for it, drive it, and enjoy it.

Thanks for the input all.

The guy who has it for sale stopped responding to my emails, so I'm guessing he thought I was a spammer (all I was doing was asking for more pictures of the insides, and a time to meet up since I had been planning on driving within 25 miles of where it was situated).

Oh well.

Uncle Shaughnessy,

+1 to what Uncle Volvo From Heck describes here.

You'll do best with the M410 (Made by Bork and Beck or Getrag?) or at least an M400. M410 is the beefy roller bearing version of the M41. Both use the D? or J? type overdrive. The M400 is the beefy roller bearing version of the M40. Final M410 output is 1:1, yet you may get away with a high rear differential gearing (yet why futz with that?).

Uncle Walrus3 will give you the best insight into both configurations as well as anything and all things Volvo 164 here.

The BW35, made my Borg-Warner, is a genuine slush box of the slushiness nature. Wastes a lot of power and does not really multiply torque through the torque converter very well. The BW35 is big and durable and beefy, yet fuel economy will suffer.

With the mighty M410 bolted to the mighty Volvo B30, you will get better fuel economy. Yet finding the complete used parts set to perform the much coveted bolt-in swap out of the BW35 and swap in of the M410 setup, from flywheel to drive-shaft and all brackets in between, maybe be a wee bit hard. You'll be at the higher end of MPG, around 18, with a light accelerator foot.

Again, Uncle Walrus3 can provide the best insight in these 164 challenges. You may want to poll his account and review his posts as many ask on the Volvo 164e auto to manual transmission.

You may also want to look into fuel and ignition matter whether Bosch D-Jetronic or carburettor equipped as to economy and reliability.

I'm envious. I truly covet a Volvo 164 with the M410 transmission as a start.

The B30 is a real runner. Nice n' torque-y and yet the overhead valve set up, as you'll no doubt keep the valve adjustment good, captures that Europa vintage Concours d'Elegance like the finest European autos of the area.

All sorts of Concours d'Elegance going on right now across the USA The MarinSonoma Concours d'Elegance is this weekend as well as several other West Coast locales hosting the same. Elegance is a genuine understatement at these car shows. You get to meet some really good, classy folks, also.

The Volvo 164 is inspired the Wolsley 6/99 design appearance a bit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolseley_6/99)

cheers,

dud.
--
Mightiest of all Volvos is the Volvo 164. No other model comes near.

I've never had an auto tranny pushrod Volvo.
But I sure like the 72 d-jet equipped 164E with M410. One pretty hot car!
Pulls a 3.31:1 diff just fine. Speedo reads about 20% slow, so an indicated
75 mph is actually 90. Feels GREAT!
--
George Downs Bartlesville, Oklahoma

My own opinion having owned three 164's--a 4-speed, 4-speed w/od and an auto and have driven many auto equipped 164's--the the power of the 6 masks the limitations of the very basic BW35. That was a transmission used in many European imports--mostly with 4 cylinder motors. There's no question the auto made the those cars more sluggish than the stick shift versions. There's no problem in that regard with the 164--it has lots of torque and will get you up to highway speed without straining. The 1975 model may be saddled with pollution control devices. Stick or auto the 164 is no economy car -- expect at best 15-18 mpg-tolerable I guess as a weekend ride. There's a high pleasure factor with the 164. -- Dave

Just adding my .02.
I agree with everything Dave said, especially "the high pleaseure factor".
I have owned four 164s, 1969 (currently), 1970, 1971, 1974, all automatics, all a great ride.
The B30A has no trouble getting to today's highway speeds, properly tuned.