I have had two 740T over the years and enjoyed them. I have the opportunity to get a 1990 744T red with average interior. It drives very well. I also have the opportunity to get a 1994 944T yet haven't driven it yet. Are they about the same, aside from appearance? What are the pro's and con's? thanks.

I believe the pros and cons lie within the vehicles themselves, the 940
would be 1st choice due to minor refinements and newer vehicle.
i would take a pristine 740 over a average 940 any day. if both vehicles were
similar condition the 940 would be the one to get.

Well said! I agree :)
--
Chris. Halifax N.S. '91 745Ti, 290K km and '91 745 NA, 381K km.

i was never a big fan of the 700 cars. apparently, enough people said the same and the 700 was replaced in record volvo time. i always thought it was their attempt to build and sell a gm car. kinda funny ford bought the car division. with the dying headliners dropping on your head and the cadillac provided hvac shoved in the dash, it was just like any late 70s-early 90s, run of the mill chevy or buick. the 940, in my mind, is a big improvement. plus, the dreaded, and now rare, zf is long gone. never available in the turbo, it was still a curse the other 700s had to bear. other than the interior improvments, the 2 cars are identical. a nice 740 and a 940 in lousy shape, i'd still buy the 940. good luck, chuck.

Hi Chuck,

Do you not realize that a 940 is basically 740? My '91 745s are nearly identicle to a '91 945. The only big difference is the front (headlights, grille > which later 940s had). A 940 SE is bascially a '88-'90 760T. 740s and 940s are both great cars. 940s benefit from some nice upgrades (better headliner, SIPS > '92+, piston oil cooling > '93+, etc) as do later 740s ('92s also got SIPS for instance). I personally prefer 944s over 744s mostly becasue the rear end looks much nicer IMO.
--
Chris. Halifax N.S. '91 745Ti, 290K km and '91 745 NA, 381K km.

I drive an 87 745GLE (132+K). My wife drives a 95 944GL (73K). We are the second owners and take pretty good care of the cars, use OEM sized tires with OEM suspension parts. Both are non0turbo and have AW71 trans.

I prefer the 745. The seats seem wider and less confining and the heardrest does not force my head forward like the 900 series seats do. My car seems quicker (I believe 740s weigh a bit less than 940s). However, the cars are very similar. I agree with the previous post that said:

-all things being equal, go with the 900 if only for the airbag(s) and SIPS. Oh, the headliner (an infamous feature of the 700 series) in the 900 is much more robust although the leather surfaces on the seats seem less robust.

Good luck.

i believe i posted-other than that, the 2 cars are identical.

why do you think volvo changed it to a 900 car? the 700 had such a bad rep from the early problems, some of which i listed, they cancelled the car, in record volvo time. i know they are basically the same car, i work on them every day. i was at the dealer from 85-89, so i am more aware of what the 700 shortcomings were. ever had to replace the headliner in your 900? we did 1 a week for a long time back then. we also stocked 3 zfs, waiting for them to blow up. although that's a moot point in this thread, it still meant the 700 had it's share of problems. the 900 is a big improvement, in more ways than no zfs and a better headliner. the 700 problems got fewer and fewer by the time the 900 was introduced, so a late 700 is better car than an early 1. but, i was around when it was intro-ed and from day 1, was not impressed. the lights and stuff you mention are either cosmetics-lights or good improvements-sips. again, given a choice between a tired 900 and a nice 700, i'd buy the 900.

if you think it's a wash between the 2 cars, post it to him-he asked. i answered with my 2 cents. off i go, chuck.

Hi Chuck,

I agree. It's just that the way you wrote the post it sounded to me that you thought the 700s were junk. I know about the ZFs and headliner problems, but most 700s had a AW70/71 or M46/M47 and neither of my 745s have had a headliner problem (knock on wood of course). It appears to me that the sedans more often have a headliner problem. I agree the 900 is improved car, but I just wanted to clarify that there wasn't much difference between a 940 and '90+ 740, that's all, I didn't mean to offend.
--
Chris. Halifax N.S. '91 745Ti, 290K km and '91 745 NA, 381K km.

it's all perspective and no offense was taken.

i've owned 3 242s in the past. currently, i'm in an 89 764t. the 740 has always been a better driving car than the 240 and when 1 comes along, i'll get another 242. always liked them. when compared to 240s, 740s were not junk, just more problematic. i've been around volvos since my first job at the dealer in 76. that's where MY perspective comes from. i compared them to comparable gm cars, maybe those were junk, i never liked them, either. in my mind, the 700 is a good car, certainly better than alot of junk on the road. i'd take a 740 over any bmw or mb anyday. probably get some flak for that 1, too. the 940 has all the good things a 740 had, with some things new and improved. much like comparing a 75 240 to an 85. ok, so i'm up to a nickel's worth, chuck.

Hi Chuck,

Sounds about right to me :) I agree that 700s and 900s drive a lot nicer then 200s. Although, one of the best driving RWD Volvos I ever drove was a '80 242GT. I couldn't believe how tight it felt and how well it drove! It wasn't even in very good shape! My Volvo mechanic reciently bought a '78 242 GT in NC and drove it home. He's going to totally restore it (it's already completely stripped). He's building one of those rotating car stands for it so that he can properly paint the bottom. I'm really excited about it, can't wait until it's done. I told him I'd help him with the project. He already has a '93 B230F L block for it to rebuild and probably turbocharge. It's gonna be great. So I can understand why you'd want another 242 :) For me, I'd like a '93-'95 945T to go along with my 745T. I hope paddling brick is getting some useful info from us :)
--
Chris. Halifax N.S. '91 745Ti, 290K km and '91 745 NA, 381K km.

yes I am getting useful information. I test drove a 87 764T yesterday and the car had serious problems, ie. no turbo boost, low voltage at the gauge, no operable water temp gauge and the electric seat didn't work. The list goes on too.

I am now looking at a 94 945T and 93 944T. I hope to buy this week.

thanks again. If I get either car I should be posting more questions soon.

Go Mountaineers!

I have three 940s and one 740. The 940 seems a little quieter. Other minor improvements throughout (oil-cooled pistons on the later ones), SIPS, dual airbags.

I had a '91 740 base model that was totalled in an accident (while car was parked), that I replaced with a '93 940 turbo. The cars basically ride and drive roughly the same. The 940 has a decent list of improvements, most notably the seats, and some other interior bits, but otherwise is the same car. From what I understand the structure of the 940 is better and has SIPS, which is supposed to be safer in side impacts. Also some improvements were made to the engine for better durability. I would probably go for the 944T as it's a much nicer looking car and it's 4 or 5 years newer. Plus the '94 should have dual air bags which is always good to have.
Here's what a 700 looks like



and here's what a 940 looks like



--
'93 945 turbo. A big comfy box.... and a '90 Mazda 626 GT turbo, 16psi on upgraded turbo and a bunch of other mods.