My diatribe got a little long, but dang did I get some VERY good information from everyone. There is so much f'ing knowledge here that it got me thinking.
I own an 87 740 GLE. That's all I really know hands-on about Volvo firsthand. I know from reading a lot about 200's and also I hear a lot of complaints from newer Volvo owners.
That being said, I'd like to see if we can apply some of the talent here in a constructive way. I'd love to bash Ford/Volvo all day long, but my drive tells me there is a time for bashing (to identify a problem) and a time for having the "can-do" attitude.
So, let's play pretend. Pretend Ford/Volvo really had a human being who really wanted to hear how Volvo owners think they can better the product. God I wish this wasn't pretend.
To keep it simple, let's break Volvo down into 4 major parts: Chassis, Engine/Drivetrain, Accident avoidance( electronic stability control, all wheel drive, etc.) and Electronics.
By breaking it down into parts, we can evaluate the parts and determine how to "rebuild" the car. What's good and can stay, what's bad?
1- Chassis: Is today's Volvo as accident worthy as its predecessor? There are many models. But, would you feel as comfortable being involved in an accident in today's Volvo as you would in your older model? Airbags aside -- simple construction here.
2- Engine/Drivetrain: I know this is broad, but do the mechanics of the engine and tranny lead you to believe it can go the 200,000 + miles?
3- Accident avoidance: Has technology improved the safety of Volvo, or has it been a case of failed experimentation?
4- Electronics: 80's Volvo had faulty engine wiring harnesses, and granted things were simpler. Are electronics in today's Volvo just a bug-ridden nightmare? Are they like Windows 95 - needing to evolve into something better? Are they worthy?
Bonus question: If you could substitute another automaker's product into one or more areas of your Volvo - what would you use and where?
I have had most every model of Volvo from the 122 to the XC70.
It is much safer to have an accident in a newer Volvo but that means the Volvo will sustain more damage. That is the nature of the animal.
Each model had it's problems. I had a 240 that had a soft cam. I had another 240 that had transmission problems after 120K miles. I also had an 850 that had transmission problems after 120K miles. I would never want to give up my 850 or V70 to go back to one of the 240s. The FWD models are much better built and have low emissions by design, not by bandaid.
The handling of the FWD Volvos is much more precise than the RWD Volvos. The RWD Volvos were fun to drive, but the body lean was out of control.
I was lucky and never got one of the buggy Volvos. I also haven't heard of those problems showing up on the FWD models.
I have driven many other makes of vehicle and haven't found anything I would want. My idea of a perfect car is one with geartronic and no leather and no sunroof. My 1800E was the most fun to drive, but the 850 comes close and is a much better vehicle. The 1800E had severe rust problems and was always having fuel leaks.
I do have a pet peeve:
I wish the cruise in my '95 850 was as good as the cruise in the '93 850 or '01 XC70.
I'd like them to bring back the 240. Especially the wagon. We had two wagons and thought they were almost the perfect car. Rugged, simple, light, decent fuel economy, easy to repair. They hold 5 passengers and a big stack of stuff. We traveled as a family of 6, two car seats and luggage with the third seat option. Our oldest child, stuffed in the optional third seat in the rear, probably wasn't as comfortable as he would have liked. :-). It had an astonishing turning radius (unbelievably easy to park) and great capability on snow (thank you, limited-slip differential).
They were lacking in reliability. Although the tranny and engine seemed bulletproof, the electrical parts should have been studied and improved over time but I think Volvo coasted a bit. Luckily, they were easy to repair (simple and plenty of room under the hood). Putting extra electrical bits in them as options (like electric windows) was not a plus.
Volvo should bring back the 240 wagon. 180 -190 inches long, and keep it narrow and a little tall, just like the old one. The weight was perfect at
3100lbs. Put in a well-designed, rugged, 4-banger (you'll probably have to go to VVT, do it right, buy the engines and transmissions from Toyota, if you have to) and 5-speed (manual or auto) and keep the features to a minimum. Build the perfect basic car. Improving the fuel economy a bit would be nice; aim for 30+ mpg on the highway. Rake the windshield just a bit more, make the front and sides a bit more slippery, curve those formerly flat side windows and make them more flush. Skip the rain gutters, too, I guess, but add a decent roof-rack system, perhaps a hideaway mounting system like on the '96 to '00 Toyota Rav4s would be good, no drag when the roof rack is taken off. Pay some attention to the under-car aerodynamics. One muffler would be enough, thanks. Add some tie-downs and cargo-net/cage things in the wayback. Volvo could bring back the crazy third-seat option, too. One ton tow capability.
The list of things it should NOT have is long. No low-profile tires! No
8-way speaker system! No CD changer under the seat; the stereo is limited to whatever fits in a slot in the dash! No in-window antenna! No integrated nav system! No electric windows! No automatic or electronic climate controls! No fade-in/fade-out lighting! No power seat (but keep the manual lumbar adjustment)! No power mirrors (although the interior handles that wiggled the outside mirrors were great, bring those back)! OK, OK, the heated seats were nice... but they're expendable, too! Nothing automatic, everything that can be turned on or off or adjusted up or down should be directly adjustable. Keep the computers to a minimum.
15 inch wheels (vs the old 14s) would probably be an improvement. Make sure that the defroster vents will push HOT air onto the windshield near the base, to help keep ice clear in bad conditions. Cruise control is probably a necessity. Fog/driving lamps would be helpful. Do bring back the rear "fog lamps" feature. There probably shouldn't be any options at all. Build it just one way and get it right. The customer can choose the color. That's it.
I don't know whether or not it should have a turbo option for those that do need more power but many of us could live without it. Come to think of it, the current Toyota 2.4L I-4 VVTi engine would probably be powerful enough, with its 156 or so hp. I think the old turbo 240s, which were fast enough, only had 168hp, anyway. 156hp is certainly more than I'm used to (the non-turbos we had provided just 114hp). A new 5-speed auto would also be one more gear than we're used to. If it saves money, Volvo could skip the provision for a manual transmission. Actually, if Volvo used a new Toyota engine, which I'd expect to be more efficient than the old B230F, went to a
5-speed with a fairly tall fifth gear (1800rpm at 55, maybe lower), did refine the body aerodynamics a bit and kept the weight to 3100lbs, I would think 30+mpg should be achievable and I don't think 34mpg on the highwway would be too much of a stretch. We used to routinely get 28mpg on the highway at a pretty good clip and ours had a pretty draggy roof rack. A diesel might be a possibility, too.
Target price of $20K. I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I'd probably be willing to pay more.
I like this way of thinking. It would be cool if Volvo release a retro-240. Keep the basic wagon style, with a little modern sculpting. Give it the "go" it needs with out all the fancy show.
Nice!
Ford is having much success with the neo-retro Mustang. Do it with a Volvo? Sure!
Never going to happen. Volvo intentionally ditched the safe and practical market the 240 served in pursuit of the fashionable and trendy. We will never see the likes of the old Volvo again.
Maybe a Chinese or Indian company will pick up on the idea and build such a thing!
Well, it sure would be nice if they would bring back the 240 and market it like the Toyota Scion, or Focus. Give it the bare bones to keep the price low, with Volvo style and safety.
They can't because the 240 wouldn't pass side impact tests. That was the main challenge in designing the 850 was to add maximum side impact protection with minimum additional door thickness. They were still selling 240s in Mexico for a while because they didn't care.
That's what I was told in '94, although the 900 series was one of the solutions.
When I say "bring back the 240," of course I don't necessarily mean the original car, warts and all. It's the concept. Basic, no-frills, reliable, rugged, simple. Update it as necessary and treat it like the old VW beetle; plan to keep it unchanged except for engineering improvements, for a good long time. You'll notice I didn't ask for the B230F to be brought back into production. As good as that engine was, I think we'd all be happier with a more contemporary motor, especially if it could wring more power out of it for it's weight and size and more miles out of a gallon of gas.
And if it looked very similar to the original, it might entice the original purchasers back, too.
This would require the development of an entirely new vehicle. No company is likely to go to that expense to satisfy a few retro-grouches who want old Volvos. ;-)
Guys, here is where I think Ford might (I can't believe I am saying this), be able to lend a hand with Volvo. (sigh).
God bless the old 200's. They will never be what they were -- accept that fact. Now, here goes. I am sure that Ford/Volvo can build a shell (chassis), that looks like the 240, but modernized (just a bit) to bring it to date. They can put airbags and all that jazz. But underneath it all find a proven and tested engine and drivetrain.
See where I am going. Look at the PT cruiser. The Mini, the T-bird and the mustang. Don't think too deep into the guts of the old 200, I am talking about a new car, wrapped up in what looks like the new, retro-240.
I hate to say disguise it as a 240, but that's basically what it would be. Something new and unique that looks like a newer version of the older 240 wagon and/or sedan.
It's required to pass certain tests so that a car can be sold, I suppose? Personally I don't care too much about test results. And why's that?
According to the latest statistics (2004) here in Finland Volvo 240 is still one of the safest cars around. It places 6th or so from 164 models measured as injures / 10 million km driven. Not new, even bigger cars fare better, with the notable exception of 1998 Opel Zafira (who could have guessed?), 1995 Saab 900, Volvo 940 (700 series included?) and 2000 Volvo S60. But *not* any of S40, V40 or even V70 models.
Of course how the people drive is affected by the car and vice versa. But as a whole airbags or anything else invented since 1974 doesn't seem to be helping much.
The exact figures can be found here, from table 13 on page 104. "Rlask" is what you'll be looking at. That's in Finnish, of course.
I suppose similar statistics have been made in other countries. Applicability abroad is of course limited, due to the winter conditions here, for example.
Not apparent is what you expect to get from this thread - please explain. Comments inserted.
Jamie wrote:
I don't know how much knowlege about f****ng there is on the Volvo forum, but I'm glad the very thought of it got you to thinking about something.
Not much of a base of knowlege. I've owned Volvo's before and after that and currently own two of them. There is not a car around that will not break down or need repairs at some point. That's why all car dealers have repair departments.
Please tell us why you would likle to bash Volvo all day long since your only experience is with a 20 year old car. BTW, I also owned a
1987 GLE and loved it. Fine reliable car.
Also, please tell us just exactly is a "can do attitude" and who exactly is supposed to have this presumably desirable attribute. (In my experience it is a phrase that first the military then an army of consultants wore out long ago)
What makes you think that Volvo doesn't pay attention to "valid" customer complaints. Without a doubt the V70 wagon is a better produce than it's 240 counterpart of 25 years ago. So in my experience Volvo does listen.
Without a doubt the newer cars are better.
200,000 miles is a very low threshold for almost any car made today. All that is required is that the owner perform all maintenance as scheduled, change fluids ahead of schedule and fix problems as they occur.
One avoids accidents by driving in a safe manner and watching out for the idiots around you.
Systems designed to provide driver and passenger safety don't allow one to avoid accidents - they minimize the damage of accidents in process. Vehicle control systems like ABS, STC, DSTC, etc., reduce the chances of a driver getting in trouble when driving beyond what common sense would dictate in a given condition. They all work for the most part.
No. Quite reliable in my experience. What would make you think they are.
Well, if you look at all of those carefully, you'll see that that they're all about surprising power and performance (the PT is bullshit but the cruiser it imitates wasn't). They were also (barely) affordable for some baby boomers, who are the main purchasers of the modern incarnations. "Safe'. 'durable' and 'value for money' didn't cut it back in the day, and it doesn't now either.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.