Listen up Volvo! I want a new 240.

You know, if you're willing to spend $30K on a 240, you could find a late model and have it completely rebuilt to showroom condition, in effect you can have a new 240, you just can't get it from Volvo.

Sorry, but there are quite a few Volvo and Camry owners here, and we can tell you that the '92-'96 Camry weighs about the same as a 240, has an engine about the same size (the four is 2.2 liters) and both gets *much* better gas mileage and also has a bulletproof engine. It's less fun to drive, a bit less comfortable in some ways, but it shows what Volvo could do without just reinstating the old 240. Maybea CVT isn't the way to go; maybe a smart transmission that knows when to coast, like my Camry has, would be the way to go. In any case, the 240 can easily be improved upon.

But with an engine where components are so tightly fit that they are virtually impossible to change or refurbish. Fine as long as it's running, but when the mechanic gives up... ? I had one of the riceboilers in the -90's where the crankshaft bearings were worn out. Had to scrap the whole car, since the refurbising meant buying a new engine. And the pricetag of the engine was way higher than the remaining value of the car itself.

I prefer a car which can be maintained by means of a hammer, a screwdriver and an adjustable spanner (monkey wrench) to something that cannot be adjusted without special equipment and that furthermore is likely to rust away.

The 260 series V6 engine had an extremely good torque, which was good if you often used it to tow. With a 1.5 ton caravan behind i used to overtake other uphill, expecially those looong ones normally quenching the power out of almost anything ::-).

The only problem was that it had a built in design flaw. The oil channels to the top were to narrow in the B27 and the camshafts didn't get enough lubrication causing them to wear down. Unless of course you used synthetic oil and changed it between regular service intervals.

On one of my 260's (the one that went to 375Kmiles), I added extra piping from the oil pan to the valve cover, with a little pump, to dump some extra oil on the camshaft. You're right about the torque, all of mine were 4+OD manuals and they could take off from a standstill as quickly as modern cars with half the weight.

I think what you're looking for is a rickshaw.

I said I already had one of those riceboilers! I want a tank!

Johan

Sure. For its day. The technology has improved, why settle for less? You can drop in a small block Chevy V8, and associated transmission, and get better fuel economy (27+ mpg on the highway) and performance than when the car was new.

Just about anything electrical on a Volvo. How about the 86+ seats that tend to age far worse than the earlier ones? How about the air conditioning? Tailgate harness? Transmission mounts?

Of course, those motors are hardly without problems. From piston slap to total engine destruction. There's a reason Volvo was forced to redesign the B200/B230. Unfortunately for them, it took far too long.

How about the engine control systems? The Chrysler lean burn system that makes passing smog a bear. The fiddly K-Jet setup (especially on the turbo).

Every new motor that Volvo has introduced has been more complicated. Boy the 240 ushered in a nightmare with them newfangled overhead cam designs. Freaking timing belts. Guess what? They seemed to have survived just fine. And if you want to extract more modern levels of performance out of a B230, there are cams out there that will work... and turn your motor into an interference design.

Or you can tweak the gearing, or you can use more modern drivetrain management, or you can design the car to be more aerodynamic, and so on, and so forth. Everything's a tradeoff, but not all tradeoffs are equal.

If you're leaning the mixture to the point that the head(!) is glowing, you're way past peak efficiency. Similarly, an overly rich mixture will do wonders for overheating your catalytic converter and possibly washing the oil off of the cylinder walls, increasing engine wear.

As was pointed out, a Camry is of a similar power to weight ratio as a

240. Yet, the four banger Camry will handily get significantly better mileage than a 240. There are a few things working in the Camry's favour. At legal highway speeds, my friend's 87 Camry was turning under 2000 RPM. Try that with a 240. Similarly, the Camry also had a lockup torque conveter, something that a 240 never got (yet a lockup transmission is hardly new, exotic, delicate, or complicated).

They use Camrys as taxis out here (California, home to some of the shittiest roads ever built). If you've got such a fear of electronics, why are you driving a 240? You realize that 240s in the US all have electronic ignitions, most have electronic idle control, and most have electronic fuel injection? If what you say is true, we should see a whole lot more 140s on the road than 240s.

Let's not forget that Volvo switched to electronic speedometers in the US (in 86) well before many other companies. Yet, the real speedometer problems were mechanical (with the odometer gears breaking and such).

Hardly. If that were true, IPD wouldn't make a killing selling upgraded anti-sway bars to handle the pretty lousy stock suspension setup.

I think the real problem is that most people are waving their hands in despair... fretting over these newfangled 850s. When in reality, you're seeing more and more high mileage 850s on the road, in pretty darn good shape, getting much better fuel economy out of a similar sized engine to boot.

Did I mention that a non-turbo 850 has a similar power to weight ratio as a 700/900 series turbo?

Absolutely. We would have to establish a baseline before being able tocompare arguments. What I am looking for is a dirt reliable, mechanically simplistic, pragmatic, maintainable car. I consider mileage subordinate to maintainability, I also prefer a longer term depreciation cycle.

Yeah IPD sells performance parts. I'm not talking about performance. I'm talking about systematic balance. The 240 had very few weaknesses, and so really defined its own market to some degree. I think part of that market was left void when the 240 went out of production.

Of course it could be improved! I think a volvo 240 with the mercedes

617 4 cylinder diesel, and the Mercedes Tex interior would be the ultimate car. (Yeah they would drive like tractor trailer trucks. but they'd probably get 40MPG) Obviously mechanical windows, mechanical sunroof, a better headliner, and some other interior fixes. Push button breakers, instead of fuses, etc. I can't of one production vehicle that couldn't be improved.

The 240 was a last-of-breed car. It was the poor-mans rolls royce. It was one of the last cars whose demise wasn't scheduled into the engineering before it hit the assembly line. With fuel costs being what they are, vehicle value in the USA is going to be reassessed. One thing the 240 always did was provide good long term value, not because it was the best at anything, but because it was very good at a lot things. That is what I want. I want a 240!

-psy

This might help put it in perspective.

I sold a my wife's '81 244 NA to a good friend of mine.

The car was about 300K miles, well maintained.

He has a mechanical background, and it's the first Volvo he'd worked on.

He was basically in awe at the build quality, the understressed engine, and most of all, he commented that it was like they had in mind the concept of DIY repair when the built it: pretty much all systems can be fairly easily accessed for repair, especially the stuff that usually gets worked on.

He's right, of course.

I know what you mean. About 6 years ago I bought a 1985 245 stick with 180K miles $500. Only got it because I wanted a big underpowered manual car for my two children who were just coming of driving age and my neighbor's son was selling it to get 4-runner. Some rust but ran strong. Multiple trips to junk yard for trim. Junk yard Turbo sway bars and new bushings ($50). Repair hatch wiring ($5). Rebuilt drivers seat ($50). New fuel pump ($~$300). Tires ($300). Was a great project for myself and my son who was just starting to drive. Was a safe car for him and both kids used the car for 5 years. I drive it now at 280K miles. Oil changed every 3500 miles. Timing belt and other usual expenses. Rust around windows "fixed" with GE silicone, unattractive but works. Using regular gas car gets 20mpg overall and 25mpg on long freeway trips, burns no oil and still runs strong. Has been on

300-500 mile trips at 70-75 mph without problem. A/C of course doesn't work. manual windows. It is a big ugly beast which I can park anywhere without worry of dings, break-ins or other problems. Car will probably die of rust or failed engine wiring harness. Cost and effort of wiring harness replacement I can't justify. The 240's of any vintage are great "project" cars and something that parents and children can work on together. Kids can learn to change oil, trouble shoot, use a wrench and replace parts, etc. The "brickboard" is a wonderful resource. Could a company build one today, of course not. Is restoration of a 240 possible, yes. Does it make sense, no. The car has been a hoot and I will continue to drive it until the wheels fall off. It helps that I live in an area where A/C is not needed and an old Volvo is considered "cool". Thanks for the opportunity to reminisce Howard

My mom's '86 245 with an M47 gearbox I put in it does just a hair over

30 mpg highway and that's with the original O2 sensor with over 250K on it. These things *can* get pretty darn good mileage for a car that size and weight.

The 4 cylinder turbo is just so much better overall that once it came out the V6 seemed obsolete even if it didn't have the flaws. The turbo gets better mileage, is easier to work on, more reliable and more powerful, not to mention the resale value is much better since most everyone avoids the V6's.

That's just how much I love my old, silver, two-door

So let's see some pics...

I have fond memories of my first Volvo, a 1984 240 D as well as a 1987

240DL. Both were fine cars that gave excellent service for more than 200,000 miles each and the 240 D served as the household driver training car for three teenagers. However in comparison to my V70 and S80 the 240 is a seriously dated design. It's handling, stability and performance are not anything to brag about in comparison with current models.

Time marches on. I also have fond memories of the many cars I owned as a teenager, but that is how they should remain - memories. The reality is that old cars, even when rebuilt from the ground up still perfrom like an old car. They look great though.

So lets take this conversation and make it reality. The car we speak of is made today. Ok it's not a Volvo quality vehicle, but its simple, has modern safety systems, and is relatively simple.

I'm sure there is more than one car made today that could fill that requirement. But lets not forget that the Volvo 240 series was not an inexpensive car when new, so we have to compare apples to apples so to speak. And heck you could even plug the S40 in as a 240 replacement. Or a Toyota Camry. The hangup for many who like the old 240 will be the lack of rear wheel drive.