Buying / owning a classic estate
 

Hi everyone 👋

I'm looking to buy a classic estate, (probably mid to late 90's) with a budget of about £2500.

I've been searching in the South and have seen a few online (I'm in Woking, Surrey.)

I have a basic knowledge of maintenance / servicing / upkeep etc. and I'm happy to crawl under the car with a spanner.

My preference is for a dark colour with black leather with a high trim spec. (But not too precious really.)

I'd really like to find a car that has no surprises waiting for me in the first few thousand miles.

If I may, I'd like to share some details related to the cars I find to see if there are any red-flags or things to looks out for.

There is lots of great information in this forum and I've tried to acquire some knowledge online (e.g. Volvo club buyers guide) to help guide my decision but would appreciate input from the experts and enthusiasts here.

There's already some great advice I've found in this thread: https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=327371

Next weekend I've arranged to view a 1996 960, and this is the info I have:

https://andijcdn.sirv.com/Images/270134.jpeg

Volvo 960 - £2500 - N885 GLU
Red, 1996, 3.0 24v Auto
Lots of service history and book of all receipts and tax discs etc.
Owned since 1998 (he has looked after it with care)
MOT until September 2023
Full leather, all electrics working except the disconnected sunroof as the seal is faulty.
Drivers seat needs is worn on the bolster.
230,035 miles

On the last MOT the advisories are:

• Nearside Front Inner Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement rear bush (5.3.4 (a) (i))
• Offside Front Lower Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement inner rear bush (5.3.4 (a) (i))
• Nearside Rear Inner Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive sill (5.3.6 (a) (i))
• Offside Rear Inner Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive sill (5.3.6 (a) (i))
• Offside of engine bay evidence of brake fluid leakage around distribution valve block but non found at time of testing

I've no other details at the moment, so will find out more when I visit.

I would like to know what to ask and anything specific to check during my viewing and test drive.

I'm also wondering what it'll be like to run a 3L 24v as it's not as economical as say, a 2.3L Turbo. I'll likely be using it for short(5m), medium(40m), and long(100m) journeys. So, is there a big difference in fuel economy?

Hi Andij,

Hello and welcome to the forum, good choice of wheels.

I'm around 14 months or so into life with a '94 940 Wentworth Estate, 2.0 Turbo, and I must say it's been a joy so far.

Always a balance between condition vs cost, so all I'd suggest is to try to avoid anything with body corrosion as for me, mechanical issue can be more easily sorted than rust issues.

There's loads of info on here, and I'm sure some other users with actual experience of the 960 will provide some guidance on ownership experience.

Just from what I have picked up on using the forum over the last year or so is that a 2.3 Turbo is the generally viewed as being 'best' if at all possible, my 2.0 Turbo is definitely more of a leisurely cruiser.

A great thread to look at on cars for sale is

https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showt...89#post2858989

Also check the sale section on the model pages, along with usual online sources.

Good luck with your quest.

Cheers
Steve

Are you set on a 960 or also looking at 940s?
Are you looking for especific characteristics? Like being an auto/manual?

I'm sure people will guide you well here on the forum. Before I bought my 940 I also looked at 960s. Be careful, depending on how well maintained this car was, 250k miles can be too much for a 960 engine and auto transmission.

As for things to inspect, I would be mindful of the usual stuff, like oil marks on the ground where the car is parked, sludge on the oil cap or whether the cap is "too clean". Do the usual tests (whach RobertDiy on youtube if you want). Check for leaks, I think on the 960, pay special attention to head gasket and rear main seal. Also the 960 as a multilink assembly on the back, which is understandably more problematic than the rear solid axle on the 940/740 series.

The advice I tend to give to other people who are interested in older volvos is always "look for a redblock". Many users on the forum, I'm sure, will vouch for 760 and 960, but from the cars I tested and what I've learned so far, for people who haven't owned older volvos previously or don't know the specific quirks of this other engines/models, the redblock is the safest bet and easiest to work on.
Essentially, not all volvos are made equally. If you want a tank from mid to late 90s, a Turbo Redblock like a B230FK or B230FT with an M90 (manual tranny) is the way to go. Not saying the whiteblock is not a good engine, I heard it is, if taken good care of, but it seems to be definitely more prone to issues than the redblock, which is a cast iron block.

Check the rear ends of the sills carefully, particularly around the jacking points on that 960 - also check how it sits when you first arrive, should be level. If the back end sags, when you take it for a test drive, do about half a mile (not much more thogh) and stop somewhere level and check it again, should be level by now - if not it likely needs new Nivos on the back. They are expensive and difficult to find.

Also the engine should be very smooth and quiet, if you can hear any slight tapping from the top end and a hint of a misfire with it, some Carlube ATF-U or NAPA MVA ATF added to the engine oil will almost certainly fix it - will improve the hydraulic tappets and piston rings in any case and help revive dodgy oil seals in the engine. About 0.5L normally does the job.

The 960 is better appointed than the 940 but 940s are more plentiful. On a long journey, the 960 should be no less economical than a 940, possibly even better. On short runs (most days a couple of 1 mile ish runs) i get 24-26mpg from my 760 (with a V6 instead of a straight 6) and havae seen 42mpg on a run with ~30mpg on most mid range motorway stuff.
No reason to suspect the 960 would be much different - it's a bigger engine so has the torque there without the need for the turbo to spool up although if memory serves, once the turbo on the redblock is up and running, it produces similar torque to the 6-pots. That means it doesn't need to be urged to get the torque resulting in slightly better economy IMHO.

Bottom line is it's your choice at the end of it all, unless you're really sure about the first one you see then view a few first. Sods law dictates there will always be a better sounding/looking one come along for sale just after you've bought your choice but that's just life - ignore it and make the best of the one you buy! :thumbs_up:

Co for a late 940 Ihave had mine for 9 years it passed mot again on tuesday with no advisories as it has since i got it in 2013

Having owned my 960 3.0ltr 24v saloon for 25 years, I would offer the following:

1. The suspension bush replacement can be expensive - check out the cost.

2. As SalvadorP says, the B6304 engine is VERY sensitive to meticulous, regular servicing, particularly oil and filter changes. The Volvo 850R had the five cylinder turbocharged version of this engine, which was used by many police forces, and they typically used to do an oil/filter change every 4000 miles. With my 960 I've done the oil/filter change every 5000 miles or every year, whichever comes first, using only high quality fully-synthetic oil. Looked after, these engines can do 500,000 miles (again, from police experience), but if the oil change intervals have been much more than 5000 miles, or sporadic, or unknown quality oil used, I would leave well alone.

3. I agree with everything the others have said.

Stan.

From experience of my 1997 S90 3-litre auto:

Front wishbones. The suspension at the front end is prone to creaking. Lower arms will fix it.

Front brakes. Make sure that the calliper slide pins are free to move.

Engine. The engine is lovely and smooth, and touch wood I've never had any issues, but I can well imagine that compared with a "redblock" it could prove tricky if you ever had to start taking it apart. I'd be suspicious of any top end clatter once the engine is warmed up. Idle should be smooth and nigh on next to silent from inside the car.

Fuel economy. 22-24mpg in typical daily use, 30mpg on a steady run, but these cars are thirsty brutes.

Rear brakes - as for the front, check out the slider pins. Also, the handbrake. Mine had a seized cable and delaminating shoes. I understand the cable is a nightmare to replace, and from experience the drums / shoes are not for the faint-hearted either.

Exhaust - possibly not completely available easily, so make sure that the one you look at does have a sound exhaust.

Rear suspension - yes it's complex. Nivomats are hellishly expensive. I'd hate to have to try to take it apart on mine - the car is 26 years old, and just about every nut and bolt looks as though it'd take some serious quantities of PlusGas to effect any sort of dismantling. I've got a leaky diff too.

Interior - dated, but that's part of its charm I guess. Door card tops wrinkle in the sun, and it's not as easy to pull apart as the S and V70 models from the same era. The wooden dash trim on mine started to crumble, but I did find replacements on Ebay.

Bodywork - it's a big car and it's easy to catch the bumper corners, so you might find that some tidying up will be necessary. I'd be wary if any significant rust has been picked up on the MoT to be honest. If that car you've seen has corrosion issues personally I'd walk away. The steel used in the panels is a massively heavy gauge, and I think very well protected, so if there's enough rust to worry the MoT man it would make me very wary.

Overall, the 960/S/V90 is a beast. It's very smooth, quiet and fairly rare. Is it as good as a 940? Well, it's different. Yes it's the same shape, but it was designed to be a luxury car for people who didn't have to worry about fuel costs. It's brilliant for long journeys on good roads, bags of power, supremely comfortable.

On twisty windy country roads it does betray the fact that it's essentially a 1970s car - but then so is the 940.

I've enjoyed owning mine for sure, but we also have an S70 of much the same age, and in my personal opinion the S70 is the better car. More modern, a better drive, an easier DIY proposition.

Cheers

Jack

I've owned my '98 940 2.3 turbo for around 18 months or so - prior to this my only really knowledge was Peugeot 406 diesels.

Firstly I find the autobox lovely to drive, it's effortless albeit a little clunky from time to time, the engine is smooth but needs a few revs to get moving compared to the lower end grunt of a diesel ( I should imagine this is the same for all petrol cars? )

The seats are proper comfy, the rear seats are a doddle to fold down and a 6'6" door just about fits inside.

Brakes are good, the handbrake is very good compared to what I was used to as well.

Turning circle is excellent, and the cars doors seem a little smaller than other cars so squeezing out of the car in a small parking space is easier than my 406 ( although this could be my imagination.. )

All the electrics work..!

My only gripe is the wallowing suspension, maybe it needs attention but it passed the MOT okay - as already mentioned it's an old design and modern cars are so different with the set up - it's fine to drive round town and it's great on long journeys but don't go chucking it down country lanes.

I'm well happy with mine - it needs a little tinkering here and there but it's 25 years old now and I don't mind a few 'quirks'

Plus, the support on here has been great.!