Hi there I am a long time BMW owner and self repairer (520i 1984) My old BM gives me no trouble whatsoever and it is still low tech enough to fix myself. Still I think I want that big station wagon only Volvo can give. I'm a bit worried about some of the problems I read on this forum- very complex cars. In Australia the 940 turbo is extremely rare, so maybe I should look for a 940 of the mid 1990's
Any suggestions? - the main factor for me is not so much the initial price, but the "keeping on the road costs"
If both cars have the same milage and were given the same level of maintenance I would think that the ongoing costs of maintenance would be very close. At least that's been my experience with 25 years of Volvo's, front and rear wheel drive.
The 940 is IMO easier to work on due to the RWD layout. I would much rather doing a timing belt on a 940 than on an 850. That said, the running costs are probably very similar and it might simply come down the question of the condition of the vehicles you find on the market. Get the best car you can find, even if at a small price premium!
I'd prefer the 850, but only for one reason: the 940 simply can't perform in snow. But otherwise, it is a much better car. That's why I have a 1993 940 and a 1998 V70XC.
It depends on the year. The '94 & '95 940 had a good reliability record. The '95 to '97 850's had a good reliability record. They were both good cars.
I never owned a 940 because I thought the 240 was a better version of the same car. My 850's were cheaper to maintain, even with the additional mechanisms of FWD. Nothing is much simpler than a 240. The weaknesses of the 240 were the adaptation of the pollution system to the engine and the suspension with its pronounced body lean on turning and the resulting effect on tire wear. They never did quite get it right. The 850 was a complete redesign with a super engine and great suspension system. The first year and a half they had a weakness in the automatic transmission, but they fixed that.
If a set of Bilsteins and IPD swaybars make an immense improvement in the handling of a 240, at least so long as you have 15" wheels and decent tires. The body lean is gone, the chassis is very stiff with good weight balance, they really handle very well.
Lighter, nimbler and better handling than my '86 740 Turbo (recent acquisition, will probably start with the mods soon: but am impressed with it AS IS from Volvo)
I imagine if you spent enough money, you could make a Flyer Wagon ride and handle well also. But it would no longer be a Flyer Wagon, it would be an IPD Wagon.
I can't speak for the lowering springs, I do have the upper and lower chassis braces but the swaybars made the biggest difference. You don't have to spend a lot of money, the bars were at least at the time $250 which I think is pretty reasonable. I also installed a set of wagon springs in the back that I got from a Volvo in a salvage yard. Shocks and struts wear out over time, why not replace them with something a bit better when they do? Swaybars cost less than a set of tires and fix 90% of the problem, it really doesn't take a lot of effort or money to make a 240 handle well but if you tried driving a mildly upgraded one you'd never go back to stock.
Of all the Volvo's I've owned, the only one that I found fault with the ride was the 1984 240. It had a tendency to pitch slightly from side to side under certain road conditions. More annoying than anything else and I understand it was a trait of the car. Under most conditions it was a more than acceptable ride. And others like the 740, 960, S80 and V70 have (had) very comfortable controlled rides.
IMO Volvo have been going downhill since the 240, the newer cars appear better, but the reliability has been going down. Having said that its not that bad and it applies to most cars, most people don't want to pay for a car that lasts 20 years and looks out of date after 5 or so. Which is handy for those that do appreciate a well built car.
My 940 has plastic pedals which causes me to crunch gears occassionally because the plastic has worn a slot in the pedal and pushrod. 240s and
740s had metal pedal. The sun roof also leaks because the seal is on sideways on glass and not on vertically like metal sunroofs. However it has done 133K miles and not given any real trouble, except when I tried a top speed test (140MPH) with turbo turned up to 11psi, even then it struggled on with a cracked turbo and just needed water every so often (for a few years). I have always abused my Volvos and the Turbos are the most sensitive, but still pretty robust and relatively cheap to sort a turbo.
The 940/740/240 can take considerable abuse and still hold together running gear, interior, exterior etc, but the only 850s I've looked at were in terrible shape with broken window mechanisms, broken bits of interior, dodgy engine management, sloppy suspension brakes etc.
If you are looking at cars >7 years old I can't imagine anything cheaper than a 940 to maintain, 850s just don't last, but then no cars do these days. 940s etc will basically last for as long as you want them to with a galvanised chassis you just have to replace service items mainly and turbos say every 150K.
My 1995 940 Turbo estate 133K miles (Bilstein rear+Springs on purchase)
- Excellent condition, V quick, no rust, clutch pedal linkage and leaky sunroof (fixed). My previous 87 360 saloon 200K miles - had a dirty coil once and was hard to start, then alternator bearing wore out at 180K miles, and a few burnt out swtiches and corroded rad at 10 years old, amazingly reliable car never ever broke down. Sisters 96 940 Turbo Estate 100K - Excellent condition after a new oil pump and eventually turbo, previous owner had never changed the oil. My Partners 97 BMW 323i 80K - Several engine break downs, suspension overhauls -plastic ball joints! - broken rear springs, knackered shocks, failed ABS sensor, corroded alloys, rust showing on rear.
I wouldn't hesitate to say a 940 would be cheaper to maintain than a BMW or an 850.
740s have plastic brake and clutch pedals too, at least those with manual gearboxes. Still, at 280K miles, I can't say I've ever had a problem with the pedals though it did strike me as odd they're plastic.
The IPD swaybars get you 90% of the way there. The only mystery to me is why Volvo didn't put stiffer sway bars on the car from the factory. They don't degrade the ride in any noticeable way and dramatically improve the turning stability and cross-wind performance of a 240.
My 940 has adjustable metal pedals...it was a rare and optional upgrade. I got the custom edition through European Delivery...you were given the opportunity to choose options from a rather extensive list. I also have the heated steering wheel, the heated rear seats with a center console rather than the useless (for me) booster seat, and who knows how many extra airbags.
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.