posted by
someone claiming to be Steve Bier
on
Tue Dec 30 06:09 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
Well, the time has come. I'm bidding adieu to my 84' 244. While it has served me well, I'd like to go for something a wee bit newer...and my Saturn just isn't cutting it. I've found two bricks...one is an 87' 744 GLE (automatic--cannot drive a stick), and the other is an 88' 244GL. Mileage and such out of the way, which is the better car, and why? Both are the same price (around $1100, give or take), and both are one-owner cars. Does the 700 have more substance to it than thr 200? I once heard someone refer to the 200 as the "Ford Escort" of the Volvo series. Any thoughts?
Thanks!
Steve
|
|
-
|
|
We have four 700 series, and two 240 series cars. Both cars have their advantages, but if you were happy with a 240 before, that is what I would buy. I like my 745T a lot, but the visibility out of our 244 is much better for driving in traffic.
The weak point of the 240 series is the blower motor, and its replacement. The 740s have strut rod bushing trouble (easily corrected), and the front brakes need a little more care. I will add that our fleet of 700 seris has never experienced the front brake troubles others have reported on the brickboard.
--
john
|
|
-
|
|
|
Results of the Used Car Safety Ratings for luxury vehicles on:
Crash Worthiness- Volvo 200 series 82-93 "better than average" and Volvo 700 series 84-92 "much better than average."
Keith
--
1990 740GL Wagon 223k AW70L B230F 8 Valve Non-Turbo Rex/Regina
|
|
-
|
|
|
Ive had wagons of both style, and think the 700 is more fun to drive. My Turbodiesel 6 is just as fast as my 79 gas wagon ever was.
As to the Ford Escort reference...Those oft disrespected little cars are a lot tougher than they look! My friend had one we jumped, mudbogged and rammed stuff with as fast as we dared. It went for a year before breaking beyond repair(the spider gears broke).
I yould guess the 700 has more depreciation because:
The wiring complexity is greater with less reliability.
The automatic(most 700s) doesnt stand up as well to modern power
Plastic cheesyness
As to which is better...I think it is mostly personal preference.
|
|
-
|
|
I have owned and driven both. Both great cars and it would probably come down to personal choice. My 700 was a GLE model and very comfortable, leather heated seats, sunroof, had about 210,000 miles on it when I sold it. Would have it still if it were not for electrical issues. I still have my 240, which I have been driving for 24 years. The 240 is not as comfortable on long trips, the cargo area is larger though. The 700 had a very nice feature of being able to fold just part of the back seat down rather than having to flip the whole back seat down. However I find the 240 more fun to drive, and it also seemed more manoeverable (sp?) to me. It does seem that they hold their value better than the 700's which must say something, any theories out there as to why this is? Cannot be a rarity issue as the 200 series had a huge production run compared with the 700's.
|
|
-
|
|
|
To be honest about the 240 is probably a bit more durable, the 740 more refined. Durability in a host of little things, headliner, interior plastic, etc. but not in rust proofing. The engines and drivetrains are the same except for the dual overhead cam engine which can self destruct if the cam timing goes arwy. The 740 has superior ride and handling (Larsson rear suspension mainly) and better rust proofing, ie. more galvanized metal and on the wagons an aluminum rear hatch. The cars are similar but the 240 is an older design by 10 years.
|
|
-
|
|
Did the person who called the 200 the 'Ford Escort' of the Volvo range mean it as a compliment or an insult?
The European Ford Escort was a very nice car, especially the 1980-86 model. I don't know much about the US version...
--
Volvo For Life. And then some...
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be mrbrickdriver
on
Tue Dec 30 06:29 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
"Ford Escort" of the Volvo series. Any thoughts? I don't think that is the case. I really don't think Volvo made a Escort type of car at least that they had here in the united states. Between the two cars its kind of a toss up. If both cars are in the same condition same miles etc. I would probably go for the 240, but that is just my preference. I think that the 240 had stronger bumpers, which might be a factor. I have also noticed that 240s seem to hold their value better the the 700 series. I don't know why. Other then a few little differences they are pretty much the same car, so it really going to come down to what car you really like.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be james
on
Tue Dec 30 08:42 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
Hello I have got a 1986 volvo 740 estate and I like mine very much. I have never had a 200 series car and cant say whether I would like it more. If I was going to buy another volvo I would probably buy a 200 series estate as they are becoming rare in the UK as rust is killing them off and keep it for weekend driving. My relative bought a 1988/9 volvo 240 GLT estate in the UK and kept it until the engine blew up in France. It had covered 180,000 miles but had probably been driven hard by the one owner. In my opinion the 240 has the more classic looks and is always thought of that way.
My 740 has covered only 130,000 miles, has no rust, alluminium tailgate and has a much higher rust protective coatings than a 240. The 740 is far easier to buy as there is still quite a few around. Mine does suffer from the plastic mouldings snapping but when I bought it I replaced them from scrapyard parts. My headliner is fine. Watch out for degrading engine wiring harnesses on pre 88 740 as the insulation crumbled away. My harness is ok. Parts are easier to get as there is still a lot about.
We had a ford escort of the volvo world. A 1985 volvo 340 GL. I found it to be very reliable even with its renault engine and I drove it for five and a half years with only the usual service items. I needed an estate and bought a 740. I sold the 340 for £50.00 about 6 months back with 7 months Mot. James.
|
|
-
|
|
|
There were Volvo 'Ford Escorts'- The 300 (RWD) series and 400 Series (FWD)- Quite popular cars in the UK, but I have always preferred the big ones :)
I think the biggest thing that the 700 series has over the 200 series is that they don't corrode as much, at least not in the UK climate. Most 700s have had less time to rust away and appear to be better built than the 200.
I would have loved to have got another 200 (A 245SE Diesel was the first Brick I ever drove) but there are few left in good, rust-free condition in the UK and people tend to hold onto good examples. Even later models are mostly junk now. The 700/900 is now the practical Volvo of choice in the UK.
At the end of the day, the choice is yours...
--
Volvo For Life. And then some...
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Terrence Town
on
Wed Dec 31 08:20 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
Hi all,
I tend to agree with most of the previous posts, although I will add some of my thoughts. I have owned both a '87 244 DL (automatic) and now have a '89 744T in the manual trans. (4sp + overdrive) configuration. My preference is for the 740 and I'll tell you why. First, the 240 is definately less comfortable for a few reasons. The seats are positioned too low relative to the winshield for me (I'm 6'0 tall), and I always found myself leaning forward at stop lights to see them. The ventillation is also much poorer in the 240. Additionally, though the engines are the same, there is definately more engine noise and road noise in general in the 240. So that's the comfort issue- how about handling? The 740 wins hands down- especially with an aftermarket (IPD) sway bar installed. Styling? Its really a matter of preference. I will admit that the 240 styling is more "classic"- while the 740 has a more updated appearance. Depends what you like. Now, if you want a turbo, the 740 also wins hands down, especially the '89 with the larger Mitsu turbo. As many of you know, the 740 turbos were water cooled as opposed to oil cooled so they tend to last a lot longer. I always felt that the 240 was "grinding it out", as opposed to its more sophisticated bigger brother, which pulls it off with panache!
|
|
|
|
|
