Found this on another forum i'm on, price is a tad steep but not wildly out as the prices are going up for what is now a very rare car :

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/274873137933

By the way, the interior is grey, not black as the seller states! Most owners report ~35mpg as well so pretty good for your anticipated commute! Drops round town and on short journeys obviously but same goes for anything! :thumbs_up:

Completely agree on the visibility, the 940 is easier to park than my partner's Ford Ka!

On reflection, I think I'm going to stay in the Volvo world and use my current car as a parts source. Partner's Mum has agreed to have it parked on her drive. It might even be the case that we end up doing a full engine swap from a donor car, depending on what's out there. I've got time to think about it for a few weeks rather than rush into anything.

I think your doing the best thing! At least you have another car to use in the meantime.

Hope you find another 940 or a used engine. Keep an eye out on here for 940's being broken.

James.:thumbs_up:

Completely agree with what James said and 10/10 to your MIL for having it parked there in the meantime!
If you do go for another engine, try and get a B230, in fact if you skimmed your present head and whacked it on a short B230, you'd almost certainly be up and running in no time!
Volvo do (i believe) produce thicker gaskets if you're bothered about the increase in compression ratio or you could just run it on Super Unleaded (only 5% ethanol that way too!) and enjoy to extra oomph from the head skim!

Knowing the engine code of old knackered engine would help forum users to advise which used engines would be an easy swap, possibly have one too. The engine code is on the cam cover. Probably only needs a used head.

James.:thumbs_up:

Needs more than a head James! ^^^^^ Highlighted the relevant pits in that post from the first (second?) page.

Originally was a B200F, a B230 block would work well, all just as easy as long as the OP doesn't want to go turbo!

Only thing that might be needed would be a crank spigot bearing depending whether he has an auto or not and whether the donor engine is auto or not.

Ah, so now I understand why Dave was suggesting saloons - I had no idea X300 XJs were so cheap (I'm guessing it would have been on the list?). Many years ago I put a deposit on an XJR only to find it wouldn't fit my parking space. I'm 51, so it's probably time I scratched that particular itch (not an XJR, a 3.2 Sov will do the job...). Relatively cheap to tax, reputation for being reliable, plenty of experienced independent mechanics around, plenty of parts about.
Don't get me wrong, I love the look of a well sorted 240 or 940 saloon but a good one is 3x-4x the price of an XJ!

There are many reasons the X300 is cheap - if it has the 5-speed auto, they're prone to gearbox failure or to be more exact, an electronic module that is buried under all the fluid fails because of a couple of cheap O ring type seals on it that fail. Then the electronics inside get drowned in ATF and die.
New module with new seals, new fluid (you may as well as the sump pan is off), filters, general service/check over and it's usually all good again.

Also the engines have a bad reputation for piston/liner failure because of the Nikersil plating on the liners "picking up" on the pistons.

You'd be better off with a 3.6 or 4.0 XJ40 if you want to scratch that big Jag itch, go and see Sean at S&C Motors in Bursledon if you want a Jag. Also for servicing/repairs.

https://www.sandcmotors.co.uk/


Very knowledgeable and won't rip you off either!

S&C looked after my uncle's X100 XKR for a while, and my cousin's Griff. It's all their fault I have a Jag itch, uncle took me out in his E-Type when I was about 6 (mid 70s when they were dirt cheap).
As I understand it the 3.2 AJ16 shares a lot with the XJ40 (4sp non-electronic box, no nasty nikersil issues), I'm not really a fan of the styling of the XJ40. My V70 experience has left me permanently scarred by electronic gubbins buried in oily areas so I'm more comfortable with the old school approach taken by the 3.2. Other than the space being tight those engines look eminently serviceable.
It's likely to be a stopgap car to get us through the summer/autumn, with the aim of selling it for more or less what we paid for it, giving me time (and wheels) to scout around for a 940 for the winter.

Ah, you already know S&C then! :thumbs_up:

The 3.2 AJ16 was a development of the 2.9 AJ6 which depending on your viewpoint, could have been an overbored half of the old Jag V12 with a hurriedly put together head (again modified from the V12) or it could have been a detuned 3.6 AJ6.
Given the 2.9 was only a 12valve head and the 3.6 was a 24v, i'd go for the former explanation.
Yes, improvements were made for the 3.2 AJ16 but IMHO the 3.6 and 4.0 AJ6 and AJ16 respectively are better suited to the car.

However, if you're dead-set on an X300 a 3.2 may be the only straight 6 option. I can't remember if they offered a 4.0 straight 6 in it, i'm fairly sure the 4.0 in the X308 was a V8 in n/asp and supercharged forms.
Again, Jaguar was under Ford ownership from 1996 so all i said about quality dropping on Volvos from that time also applies to Jaguar.
Apart from the bits i've mentioned on the X300, there's not much to go wrong on them that won't also go wrong on an XJ40, i prefer the styling of the '40 because it was a new (but still Jaguar-esque) shape whereas the X300 tried to recapture the Series I/II/III shape and while it came close, it couldn't quite manage to pull it off for me. It's a matter of what you like though, if the 300 floats your boat, go for it but i'd suggest trying a 4.0 straight 6 if you can find one rather than the 3.2 - chances are it's more economical as well!