|
Hi Gang,
My DDs are a '40 Hudson and a '65 220. Want to have a little more room than my 220 for carrying bikes, two adults and occasionally 3 kids. Those of you who made this same decision, what were your deciding factors? What should I look for when deciding on a 740?
Posting this question on another board as well.
Thank Scot
--
Digital Job and Analog Rides:1965 220, 1956 Matchless G80S, 1940 Hudson
|
|
-
|
My experience was with a '79 245 M46, good car but about as exciting as a pack mule and once got 25 mpg downhill with a tailwind? Sold it with 317,000 mi.
Really wanted to try a turbo with M46 and for about a year of correcting 135,000 miles of abuse the '87 745 became my personal favorite. I really haven't had any serious problems with the Bosch 2.2 fuel system since it pulls 24 mpg with Kayaks on top and has recorded 30+ mpg several times without.
Critical fuel system parts are new Bosch and the turbo boost is set at 10 psi.
First turbo went at 440,000 mi as the exhaust housing cracked.
The point is that it is fun to drive with the M46, boosted turbo, overload rear springs, Bilsteins all around and IPD swaybars.
A late model 245 would certainly be no comparison to a '79 but for me a 745 was the right move.
Right now my sweetheart is sitting in a barn in Ohio awaiting cosmetic surgery after losing an encounter with a culvert. In AZ right now thinking about the needed repairs. This Spring we'll resume our quest for one million kilometers!
Currently at 607,000 mi.
|
|
-
|
I'm partial to the 245. If you can find the 92 or 93 it'll be a winner. It's a bit taller, which I like, than the 745 which I think makes it feel airier and slightly easier to get in and out of. It's also narrower making it that much easier to get in and out of parking spaces. So it is a bit smaller overall. The 745 feels more refined, less noisy than the 245. Fuel efficiency is a wash.
|
|
-
|
The 700 turbos especially are going to average lower than 240s. I once thought, before I knew better and owned a 700, that MPG was the same between models. I'm not going to allow that myth unchallenged. A normally aspirated engine may be closer but not turbo cars...
Simply look at the EPA fuel economy site and compare... yes, my 86 Volvo gets 16 in the city, and that's before my current problem of it hovering at 14mpg.
--
I own a Volvo or Does Volvo Own Me? Try the easy to search Expanded Style FAQ Index http://40mph.com/Brickboard_700-900_FAQ_Expanded_Index_Version/
|
|
-
|
700s: The early years were LH 2.2 fuel injection system, avoid them. I think the last year on turbo is 1988 or so, and the NA engine was 1987, but don't quote me. The LH 2.4 is adaptive and gets significantly better gas mileage. Where the 2.2 erases it's memory every time the ignition is turned off!
Years through 1986 had the biodegradable harness like the 240.
So look for the later year 700s, I think 1991 or 1992 is last year (again double check).
As far as turbos go, they are fun! There is no additional upkeep compared to NA, other than clean oil is more important than ever.
The only additional cost is when it needs to be replaced and/or rebuilt. A well built turbo costs $600 or so. Yes, they can be cheaper, but expect it to be replaced again much sooner. Probably most 700s you will see will need a turbo during your life with the car.
--
I own a Volvo or Does Volvo Own Me? Try the easy to search Expanded Style FAQ Index http://40mph.com/Brickboard_700-900_FAQ_Expanded_Index_Version/
|
|
-
|
92 was the last year for the 740's. Test drove and almost bought a 92 745 turbo wagon. Solid and fun car!
I also test drove many 940's. The NA were too slow for me so I focused on the turbo cars. Drove many 91-95 940's and I thought the 94 turbos were the best of the lot. All of the 93-95 940's have the oil squirters to keep the pistons cool and get rid of piston slap. Really any good condition 93-95 is desirable. Don't overlook the The 91-92 740's and 940's as they are pretty good cars too...
|
|
-
|
Whoa! A Matchless! I had a 1966 G80CS for a few years along with some other bikes so it didn't get a lot of riding. A fun and unique ride, but it did beat you up a bit on the highway. Sold it to a collector/restorer so it went to a good home.
Still riding but have moved up to a 36-yr-old BMW R100 (the youngest of my four M/C's).
--
Bob: Son's XC70, daughter's 940, my 83 240, 89 745 (V8) and S90. Also '77 MGB and some old motorcycles
|
|
-
|
The 700/900 series are readily available with turbos. That's a huge plus. It's nice to have the extra power, and maintenance isn't hateful on them.
|
|
-
|
I have owned a few of each. I like the 740 and 940 wagons better because of room for storage and the ride seems a bit better than the 240. What I don`t particularly care for is the REX REGINA cars, its a bit more touchy to keep them tuned. The way to tell the difference between the LH2.4 and the REX REGINA is the REX REGINA ignition coil is mounted on the drivers side strut tower, it is square with cooling fins. Some may disagree with me on this but all of the others Iv`e owned were LH2.4 cars. Hopes this helps! Larry
|
|
-
-
|
I never noticed the bar up there, thanks. The FAQ was exactly what I was looking for
Scot
--
Digital Job and Analog Rides:1965 220, 1956 Matchless G80S, 1940 Hudson
|
|
-
|
Given that 740s are at least 21 years old now, they will most likely have lots of miles. I would look for a well maintained one, decent cosmetically (no rust) and solid engine/transmission. I believe the 740 wagon probably has more room than the 240, but could not swear to it - just seems larger to me. I also prefer the driving position of the 740. I see clean 740 wagons on CL and Autotrader all the time, with under 200k miles, in nice shape for reasonable prices ($1700-3000). You probably know the b230f is bullet proof (mine has 260k), and the AW71 automatic seems solid, too (though the manual would be more fun and fuel efficient). There are a few manuals out there, but plan on seeing mostly automatics. Go to turbobricks.com, For Sale forum, Tonight's Volvo Orphan - people post 240/740s for sale all over US advertised on Craigslist. There are some deals out there, good luck. Or just do a Craigslist Search by state/region, etc.
|
|
-
|
Unlike jfs356 I prefer the seating position of the 240. You have to plop yourself down into the seat in the 740/940 body. I've owned a very nice '92 940 turbo and also did not care for the overall extra bulk of the car. If you like the handy size of the 220 a 240 will probably be more to your taste but if possible you should try to take a thorough ride in each model to get a feel for what suits you best. Maintenance and service wise they are pretty much the same -- both needing less than the 220. -- Dave
|
|
|
|
|