|
|
|
I am on my third volvo (#1 was 1967 122-S that sister totaled; #2 was a 1980 240 with 330,000 before it lost compression; #3 currently 1986 240 with over 200,000 miles)
With the 200 models so popular, why did Volvo have to mess things up and discontinue production? I'm not very taken by the new models and it's only a matter of time before I'll be shopping for another Volvo.
I'm sure this issue has been brought up before and I'm overlooking it in the archives.
Thanks for listening to me whine.
--Jackie Blue
|
|
-
|
|
|
I drive a 1991 745 turbo, and the 240's I have either ridden in or driven drive like trucks, and sound a little like them too. The sound damping and ride of a 740/940 is much more pleasant than that of a 240, as popular as they are among Brick enthusiasts.
--
Darius in Albany NY '86 744 GLE (175K, given to my mother-in-law); '91 745 Turbo (174K-my 'Little Red Wagon'), '00 Toyota Camry (65K - my wife's transportation appliance)
|
|
-
|
|
|
I agree; my 85 245 DL (B230F) feels quite a bit like a truck driving it around.
--
85 245 DL - 91 Mazda MX6 Turbo
|
|
-
|
|
>>my 85 245 DL (B230F) feels quite a bit like a truck driving it around.<<
Mine too....er....wait a minute. It doesn't drive like a truck. But it will hold a ton of cargo like a truck.....
|
|
-
|
|
|
A 745 will haul a lot too, but offers a more comforting ride.
Such said, the interior isn't as fragile in a 245 over a 745.
Though not quite a ton (more like a 1/2 ton truck), both still suprise others in how much it can haul. Two weeks ago in my 245, I was transporting over 1200 lbs of marble tiles. Just this weekend, I had the homemade roof rack (made with 2x4's, it's 5-1/2' wide x 8' long) stacked with plywood and sheet rock. Loaded with ease, as it all just drops in flat on top.
-- Kane ... the iPd overload coils did help, of course.
--
Blossom II -'91 745Ti/M46 ... Bubbles -'74 144GL/BW35 ... Buttercup -'86 245GL/AW70
The Wayback Machine -'64 P220/M40 ... The ParaBox -'90 745GL/AW70
|
|
-
|
|
A 745 will haul a lot too, but offers a more comforting ride.
What you make up for in a more comfortable ride, you loose in nearly everything else. Crappy interior plastic, crappy brakes (sliding calipers.. EWWW), crappy front suspension bits (lack of adjustment too), crappy headliner, crappy glass or plastic headlights, crappy window regulators, more crack prone dashes, more expensive maintenance items (ignition components and motor mounts for sure), more tedious relays or electronic bits to fail (RSR, power stage, etc), awful HVAC components (anything related ACC or ECC, the failure prone heater control valve, etc).
Oh the fucking heater core just blew. Judging by the FAQ entries that seems to be a common(!) happening on the 700s.
Let's not start on the 760 specific bits that tend to fail.
Lots of tiny improvements, a few big steps back. I sure won't be tempted back to the 700s anytime soon.
If your primary complaint is that the 240s are too noisy, put some noise suppression material (DynaMat?) down. I think you can get such stuff from McMaster-Carr.
But really.. do we need ANOTHER bring back the 240 thread? No. Just read the archives if you're that bored.
--
alex
'89 765T, 179,2xx mi
|
|
-
|
|
|
I agree. I test drove a 99S80 and thought it was one of the worst cars that Volvo had made. It made me glad to get back behind the wheel of my 88244.
|
|
-
|
|
the torque steer on that was terrible.
--
and the bricks keep on rolling....
|
|
-
|
|
|
It was probably better than the S40 T5 I test drove. What POS that was.
It's a shame we never really got any downmarket Bimmers in the US except for the 318i. Maybe my replacement car will be a late model four door 318i. RWD and a stick. Yum.
--
alex
|
|
-
|
|
|
Please, S40s are the weakest excuse for a volvo around....i mean, just look at it! Although, it has a new competetor. V50....blah!
--
Blue '89 Volvo 244 DL 5-speed w/ 176k
|
|
-
|
|
|
Why did they discontinue production, you ask?
The early 1990s 240 was fairly expensive for the time ($18-20k). For significantly less, you could by any of a number of other cars of much more modern design.
Now, you can say that the 240 had greater longevity, and you'd be right. But most new car buyers don't keep their cars "forever". So when why would a typical new car buyer in 1993 buy a 240 when for less s/he could get a car that is more modern (more comfortable, etc.) and with probably better reliability out to 8-10 years (even if it is less likely to last 20-30 years)?
Of course, lots of people find 240s great as cheap, durable work wagons, but it isn't likely that they could make new 240s for $5k or less and still make a profit, and those buying cheap, durable work wagons may not have wanted to spend $18-20k in 1993 (or $30k now) to buy one.
And improving crash protection standards (whether government mandated or marketing pressure to do well in more severe crash tests) would leave the 240 behind not many years after its discontinuation. The best crash protection of the 1970s and 1980s is not very impressive by the standards of today.
Also don't forget that 114hp with EPA ratings of only 23/28 is not exactly state of the art these days.
|
|
-
|
|
|
The list price was higher than that - they were only selling it in the upper teens/lower twenties to move 'em from the lot.
Durability was a key factor in their continued sales, though brand new, they weren't 100% reliable off the dealer's lot either. Some "Monday cars" were out there too.
Crash protection could've been improved without a whole lot of work. An extra brace down low on the B-pillar/floor would've been enough to meet 1997 side-crash protection standards. Even without airbags, a full frontal did well enough in the NHTSA crashes to pass also.
The gas mileage wasn't too bad for its size, but it was still more sluggish than the mid-sized competitors. The engine could've been reworked for better emissions, much as the earlier redblocks went revisions in its life too.
Beyond all this, however, lies the biggest issue that the 240 didn't bring any new buyers to the Volvo name. As it was already, though, much of the 240 assembly line was still hand built. It was the more costly to build than the 850, yet had a lower return. It's hard to make financial sense from that.
-- Kane
--
Blossom II -'91 745Ti/M46 ... Bubbles -'74 144GL/BW35 ... Buttercup -'86 245GL/AW70
The Wayback Machine -'64 P220/M40 ... The ParaBox -'90 745GL/AW70
|
|
-
|
|
|
My 89 5speed 244 gets great milage, 30-35mpg on the highway. I used to drive a suburban though, so i guess anything is better than that. as for safety, everyone know that even 80's volvos are just about the safest cars on the road. Airbags or no. They just dont build cars like the used to.
--
Blue '89 Volvo 244 DL 5-speed w/ 176k
|
|
-
|
|
|
Hello,
This issue has been debated to death here. From what I can make of it here's why.
1) Cost - As car manufacturers build newer cars, they figure out how to build them cheaper. Convert the purchase price of a 1993 240 (middle 20's) into 2004 dollars and you will have a very expensive 30 year old design.
2) Safety - They figure out how to make them safer. Although 240's are very safe, a V70 is inarguably a much safer car. A 'new' 240 just wouldn't pass current NHTSA testing standards. Again, the safety standards were different in the 60's.
3) Reliability - A 240 is reliable yes, but I give the example of my father's 1998 V70 AWD. In 6 years/120,000 km, apart from the air pump thing($600 - known issue with the car) he has had to do only required maintenance, a set of brakes and 4 tires. No exhaust, no seals, no bearings, no bushings, no wiring repairs - I remember several multi-thousand dollar bills before the last 240 he had even hit 5 years of age. Not a single spec of rust either. 30 years ago the average lifespan of a car was 3 years. It's now 2.5 times that.
4) Technology - The 240's were very old school even in 1993 with old style separate fuel and ignition systems, solid axle rear suspension, open weld seams everywhere - I could go on forever with points on a 30 year old design.
Fact of the matter is, the 240's evolved from the 140's that were originally conceived in the early 1960's. In fact the 240's ultimately received larger makeovers over it's life than the original 140 to 240 evolution. As much of a groundbreaking, innovative and lasting design that it was back then, it still remained a 30 year old design that had long lived out it's life. Volvo had actually intended to supplant the 200's with the 700's back in the mid eighties, but due to the sluggish early sales of 700's, the 240 soldiered on until 1993 when side-impact regs (final nail in the coffin) forced the issue.
As a final note, I'm a die-hard 240 man, always have been, always will be. LONG LIVE 240's EVERYWHERE!!!
I think Volvo sold the frame molds to a company in China.....
--
Happy Bricking!!! - Richard - '87 245 DL , '82 242 GLT - Volvo's are alive and well in Brampton!!!
|
|
-
|
|
|
you probably had a 240 with "problems". Sure, you could even buy a lemon Mercedes or a Bimmer. I come from a family that drive Volvos, the oldest being my 74 144, an the newest being the 90's 940. In terms of reliability and quality and safety, some of the newer cars I have and had (not Volvos) do not come anywhere NEAR my 74 144, which is why my 74 Volvo is still my main family hauler after 32 years. 350K miles and 32 years later, it still has the original motor and tranny, brakes etc...alternator laster 23 years, 260Kmiles, A/C compressor finally gave out 2 years ago (car lives in a tropical climate, so A/C is used everyday). My newer cars? They have problems unheard off in my Volvo. And one thing I found out while working on my Volvo. There's always room to retrofit almost anything, with all the room it has. Average span of car 30 years ago was 3 years? In my case, X 10.
--
and the bricks keep on rolling....
|
|
-
|
|
Safety issues were one reason.
It would have been almost impossible to retrofit things like side impact air bags with out significantly changing the body design.
Also, as advanced of a design that the basic 100/200 body was when it was introduced in the 60s, it was outdated by '93. They used the same basic body design for about 30 years.
Others have more reasons, but these are just a couple that come to my mind.
--
If you listen to the radio in Portland, OR, you may know me as "Portland's Favorite Soul Brother!"
|
|
-
|
|
|
My wife's 98 V70 has a lot more problems than my 83 245. It is certainly quieter and a smoother ride, but every few days, something goes wrong with it and it only has 80,000 miles. 240s were just getting broken in at that kind of mileage.
|
|
-
|
|
|
thank you.
--
and the bricks keep on rolling....
|
|
|
|
|
