|
|
It seems to me that many posters on this board agree that later 240's were better then earlier 240s... Why is that?
I own a '77 244, and a '80 245. I have no idea what the mileage on the '77 is (the odometer is broken), but the '80 has gone to 415,000.
The '80 has never had a major problem ever. (One transmission in the life of the car, and two clutches.)
The family once owned a '89 245. It was a complete piece of garbage. It didn't have any rust or anything, but something was ALWAYS wrong with it. A computerized something or other seemed to fail at least once a month, or some sensor would fail, etc... I hated those stupid "Check Engine" and "Service" lights. That's another thing I like better about the earlier Volvos, they didn't have either of those lights!
I could never do much of the work on the '89 either... it had all these computer readout codes that didn't make any sense to me.
That '89 made me never want to drive a post '80 240 ever again. The '80 makes me love 240's, and is aging gracefully (no signs of rust). The '77 is still solid, although showing signs of rust. I don't know what to think anymore.
The only things I liked better about that '89 was that you could add more gauges to the dash, and that the headlights would turn off if you left them on accidentally when you removed the key, but still, it wasn't worth it for me.
So I am curious... Why do people like the post '80 240's more then the older ones?
|
|
-
|
|
|
140's stop & go so much better, yet are the same size car.
|
|
-
-
|
|
|
Haha!
This is the best post I've read in a while. It is true, as you said, "Ho's like newer cars..."
Then again, sometimes they like "classic" restored cars, but I doubt any old Volvo (other then an 1800) is going to qualify.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be later 240 fan
on
Wed Jul 9 07:51 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
PROS (major):
- Better tailgate design on '90+ wagons (no window lip for rust)
- MUCH quieter.
- ABS - every 240 I ever owned, sedan or wagon, prior to ABS - was an unabashed NIGHTMARE to control in snowy/slippery weather.
- Airbag (pity they didn't extend the effort to engineer in a passenger side one too).
- Better rust-proofing & fewer leak-spots - from the factory.
- Standard rear-seat headrests.
- better-integrated bumpers/trim/mudflaps
CONS (minor):
- G.D. "environmentally friendly" water-based foam (I hate that stuff!!), leading to crumbling seats & little pills of foam all over the carpets; also leading to HARD armrests and HARD steering wheel.
- "De-contenting" - making pre-installed wiring for accessories less of a sure thing for tach, gauges, side blinkers etc. and fewer factory-sunroof, power-mirror equipped models to find used.
- moving front seatbelt anchors out of the console and removing lighting for them
- stupid rear-mount & non-power antenna for wagons
|
|
-
|
|
|
Add to cons, at least from my experience:
Those stupid headlights that turn yellow for some reason.
All that computerized stuff under the hood.
____
I will say that I do like the rear seat head rests.
Then again, I've never driven a 240 made past '89. I don't know if the '90-'93 models were greatly improved. From what you are saying (Airbag, ABS, tailgate improvement, and better rust proofing), maybe there were some drastic improvements from '89 till the end of the production.
That said, I plan on driving my '80 for another 23 years, and I have every intention of rolling that odometer over before I rebuild the engine, if I have to. (I'm almost half way there!)
|
|
-
|
|
Boy if you could only see me roll my eyes at your tiresome tirades over
how everything was better.
There's a forum dedicated to the Ford buyout of Volvo that might interest
you.
- alex
|
|
-
|
|
|
Hey, the way I see it, everything was better.
If you ever owned a car that got up to 415,000 miles, you would feel the same way too.
I don't know if all post '81 240s were as horrible as the '89 I once owned, but if that car was any indication...
It could be I happened to get a bad one out of the bunch. Who knows.
|
|
-
|
|
|
"Boy if you could only see me roll my eyes at your tiresome tirades over
how everything was better. "
Considering that 23 years have passed, and that technology is sooo much improved, the new stuff isn't all that great (despite the sales pitches).
Do you expect the V70 to be more solid, last longer, get better mileage, be as cheap and easy to fix?
--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans
|
|
-
|
|
|
I have an 87, but I like the looks of the earlier 240's. Especially the 242's with a flathood and the round headlights. That is by far my favorite looking 240. The Haynes (76-93 Edition) has a early blue 244 with black leather interior. I would love to have a 240 that looked like that. I scanned the cover if you haven't seen it, take a look.
One good looking 240! No yellow plastic headlights!
--
87 240 DL & 74 164E
|
|
-
|
|
|
Having gone (after my old '73 164) through a series of 240's -- a '78, '80, '83, and '84 -- and jumped to a '93, the most striking change* for me, personally, is the substantial reduction in wind noise. At highway speeds, I can have a conversation or play the radio at normal levels!
[Of course, when you compare a '84 to a '93 side by side, you have to factor out the improved ride and power, which I attribute mostly to the newness in bushings, etc., all in better condition.]
|
|
-
|
|
|
To quote Bob Haire "The 240 underwent a contiual process of refinement right up to the end."
Late models just seem like a much more civilized car.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Hello,
Problem is up here in Ontario, Canada is the older ones without rust are very scarce. Usually big bucks if you find a good one as well. If I came across a GT in good shape I would buy it in a heartbeat.
Happy Bricking!!!
Richard
87 245 DL 360,000 km
82 242 GLT 121,000 km(being coaxed back to a rustless state)
|
|
-
|
|
|
i was told that NO VOLVO 240 DRIVERS WERE KILLED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS FROM 1986 THRU 1992-------maybe few were injured defending their cars from other makes owners during roadrage events--seems like the motoring public will target your volvo when they make stupid traffic moves!---- was also told that late 1980's bodies were galvanized during the final assembly process B-4
primer and finish paint-----ANYONE WHO CAN CONFIRM THIS?----- other than the heater core/fan motor and the goofy brake lite switch placement i concurr with the evolution of the 200 series volvo design.....
PLUS ANYONE WHO CAN AFFORD THE OTHER EUROPEAN TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES HAS TOO MUCH MONEY AND TOO MUCH EGO TO TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT A VOLVO
..... that's gonna change as the ford motor crowd take a second look a current volvo-------they'll soon tire of the jag-U-ar
ego ride and move to the present-day volvo... aren't we looking forward to the
BLUE OVAL GROUP, as our cousins..........
|
|
-
|
|
|
It was the 1985 model year and every year after that received Galvanized sheet metal.
Personally, I would love to own a '91, '92, or '93 wagon, for the following reasons:
1. The lockup torque converter (for those of us who drive automatics).
2. Late model tailgate (metal and glass)
3. Improved front windshield.
4. And as for electronics and fuel injection, the improved gas mileage and effeciency is well worth the extra time to service the higher-tech parts. (personal opinion of course)
Carburetors tend to make me a bit nervous, -mostly because I haven't had a lot of experience with them. However, I feel totally confident working on fuel injection. I guess I was blessed with a good start though, in 1993 I rebuilt the fuel injection system on an '81 Toyota Cressida at the age of 16 out of necessity. As soon it was running, I sold it for an '86 Pontiac 6000. That car was easy to maintain, simply put the computer into diagnostic mode and it told me what was wrong with the car (with only a few exceptions, like an ignition timing control module failure). After owning the Pontiac for 10 years, I've gained enough experience so that now I can usually tell what's wrong with the Volvo based mostly on sight, sound, smell, and sometimes a multi-meter. I admit that I miss not having a good auto-diagnossing computer, but it's a trade off for the safety of a Volvo.
God bless,
Fitz Fitzgerald.
--
'87 Blue 245, NA 220K
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Dave M
on
Tue Jul 8 02:23 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
I think there are a few major problems with the pre-90's 240 models. First is the lousy wiring they used. I could never think of a reason for the ealry model's wiring always falling apart until a friend mentioned that the wiring was designed to be bio-degradable!! So after a few years it self-destructs and things start to short out. Later model's wiring is okay. Second, the automatic trans in the early models only had three speeds and no overdrive. At 70 mph you are really winding it up and starting to burn some $$ in gas. Third, the electric overdrive on the manuals and automatics kinda suck. Much better with a real fifth gear, though all manuals have the crappy gear shifter mechanism that falls apart. Last, parts of the flame trap/PCV system on the early models are located where you can't easily get at them. They tend to plug up and pressurize the crankcase, leaking oil outta every possible seal. The one good thing about the pre-B230 motors is that when the timing belt breaks, they don't grenade! You can just replace the belt instead of buying a new motor!
|
|
-
|
|
|
That poor wiring used for the wiring harness was not used in pre '81 240s, which is another reason why I prefer them.
|
|
-
|
|
|
B230s are non interference too, unless you have a 16 valve which were never put in 240s. The wiring harness is not that big a deal. You just replace it, and even new from the dealer the harness is not that expensive. Its about the same cost as doing a brake job, or replacing some of the expensive LH fuel injection parts. Kjet parts are expensive too, but they almost never fail.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Oh that's not true. K-Jet parts do fail, they don't usually fail catastrophically the way that LH-Jet parts might.. except for the CPR. So you just think that the car is running okay, when in reality it's probably quite a bit less powerful and efficient than when it was new.
That's like saying carbs are simpler and cheaper. Great... but on MY cars I don't have to dick around with the points, spark plugs don't wear out as quickly, I get better fuel mileage, and better cold running behavior. Oh, and I don't have to oil the carbs every 3k miles, nor do I have to worry about a heated intake manifold.
- alex
'85 244 Turbo
'84 245 Turbo
|
|
-
|
|
|
"That's like saying carbs are simpler and cheaper. Great... but on MY cars I don't have to dick around with the points,"
Haven't touched my points in ages. Hook up a dwell if it's still at 60, don't touch 'em.
"spark plugs don't wear out as quickly,"
Newer spark plugs last longer that those in '80.
"I get better fuel mileage,"
10 to 11 KM per liter (30 mpg?) is fine to me for a loaded wagon.
"and better cold running behavior."
I'm in Ontario, starts and runs fine in witer. The nice thing about a manual choke is *you* adjust it. You don't sit around waiting for a tow because the AMM (or whatever) isn't doing it's job and you can't do it.
"Oh, and I don't have to oil the carbs every 3k miles,"
If you mean topping up the damper. No problem. Some people do oil changes as often and it's a lot harder and messier.
"nor do I have to worry about a heated intake manifold. "
Neither do I.
--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans
|
|
-
|
|
|
Rust is the big issue around here. Pre 86 Volvos are rare around here, and even the 93s have significant rust on them. I have an 84 that I am trying to keep on the road, but its only a matter of time before rust gets it. It was too far gone before I got it to bother trying to stop it.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Like Don said, rust, and also mileage, air bags, ABS, the newer look, usually tighter (if older model has not had shocks/bushings replaced), torquier B230, etc... Some people just can't fathom buying a car that old. That leaves more for us!
--
Speed Racer, '83 240 R, '74 164 E, '93 940 OL1 (Manchester, CT)
|
|
-
|
|
|
As Foster suggests it's probably a rust issue. My '80 is rusting/rusted but I'm not letting go without a fight. (presently in the process of rebuilding the rear right area behind the wheel with galvanized sheet metal.)
Sure a newer wagon can be picked up cheap. But carburetors are a lot easier to work on (none of the numerous fuel injection problems, no cat and because of age no emmisions test).
I too prefer mechanical systems to computerized ones though I do have a computerized system in my car. It's called a cassette radio.
--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans
|
|
-
|
|
|
I wonder if the 8-TRACK player in my '80 would be considered a computerized system...
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Bill M
on
Tue Jul 8 00:56 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
I have an appreciation for ALL Volvos, old or new, 240 series or otherwise. The oldest Volvo I've ever owned was an `83 245, but I have several friends who drive more vintage stuff(...early 240s, 544, 122s). I drive my `93 245 out of neccesity. If a cherry `77 245 came my way when I was in the market for a 240, I would have snatched it up.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Rust, or lack of.
--
Don Foster (near Cape Cod, MA)
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be 1980 240 owner
on
Thu Jul 17 16:39 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
Our 1980 sedan has been a workhorse. It has not started rusting to badly . The odometer gave up at 100,000 and its got at least a second 100,000 on it if not more. The darn radio broke this year is there any warranty?
|
|
-
|
|
|
I think that radio had only a 20-year warranty. Too bad, the 1980 wagon radios had a 30-year warranty to the original owner providing the speedo worked and he wore a tu-tu.
You lose, at least on the speedo part.
--
Don Foster (near Cape Cod, MA)
|
|
-
|
|
|
I like having only 2 doors.
|
|
|
|
|
