Could I have some 1st opinions on this
 

This one just came up and it isn't that far from me.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/133828583197

Its been a while since I had a 900 as I got gifted my mothers old xc70 which was impossible to so anything on myself so I have been missing the old days.

Seems like an honest guy as he's listed loads of issues. I was wondering if he's a member and any of you knew him or the car.

What do you think? What sort of things should I be looking out for/asking for photos of?

£150 for the mot !!!
Wonder what it really needs, and he's blanked out the reg so you can't check

RWDKev will be the one to answer this.

I am not aware of the specific vehicle but that would appear to be a fair price.

I understand £150.00 for an mot when an mot is £50 but I think that’s quite a show of confidence myself. Its a decades old vehicle and he is willing to put it through for £100 on top of the ticket.

I would be interested at that price myself…

I’d be wanting to know the MoT history and would be wanting to be sure the rear suspension is in good shape. It’s much more complex on the late 960’s, loads of bushes and links which can cause problems. Having had one, I’d be looking for a 940.

Thanks for the sounding guys. I called the seller on the phone number given. He sounds like he understands cars, absolutely volvo mad. He said he had blanked out the number plate because it was ebay and he thought people go through looking for number so they can ring other cars - his dad had a speeding ticket from a car using his reg number in Scotland so... could be reasonable. Apparently the reg is M269 YCE.

He had me put it into the web so he could talk us through the past advisories which was fair enough. I'll have a look when I see it. The two areas he flanneled me alot about was oil leak which he said was just spilt oil because he is of the opinion that oil changes are really good and when he got it the oil was like tar so he'd changed it repeatedly and overfilled it twice so it flew out of the breather pipes. Does that sound legit? The other thing he had issue with was the corrosion to the underside which he said the MOT guy just looked at it, poked the dirt on the underside and declared rusty. Like the oil thing he thinks that the caked on dirt/rust/crud is doing more to protect it and that if he took a wire brush to it isn't so good on the long term. Bit of an old school type.

His sob tale is his wife walked out on him leaving him with little kids to look after which is why he can't have his project anymore which makes sense. He thinks the MOT will require the rear tyres, plus the fee plus he'll need to fill it with petrol and find someone to look after the kids so 150 quid won't cover the cost to him of MOT but he thought it was a nice sweetner to add.

Also he seemed to be concerned - kept asking me if I was - that the MOT was about to run out.

He also thought his offer of delivering it was really generous as that would also cost petrol and time.

He went on for a bit about the ball joint movement in the front which he said was the drop links and that the MOT tester stuck a bar inside the joint and then swung his whole weight on it before declaring that. It doesn't sound like he thinks much of his MOT tester.

eternal optimist (nice name) - I have been looking at 940s but seems like a bit of a mixed bag. Some are insanely priced and I am suspicious of very low milage 30 yr old cars, barn finds or whatever sound good but how long standing to have a 60k only milage. Even this one at 100k seems a bit low. Then there are some very high milage 940s. I had a 2.0l 740 back in the 90's and it was slow. Maybe a 2.3 would be better. Really didn't want to do turbo as the XC70 gave me trouble and I couldn't service the turbo element myself.

I will go and have a look next week. What should I be looking at on the rear suspension? Just that all joints are tight? How can I tell?

What do you think about the laquer peeling, he recons I can just sand it smooth, add some paint and then polish it off, its mainly on the bonnet but then I'm thinking why didn't he do it. I guess woman issues could be a fair explaination, car issues are one thing but woman issues - I'm not going to even start there.

I think many many people have their car rung by number plates so as long as he has given you the plates that’s fine.

The £150 for MOt with tyres and such like seems entirely reasonable to me, especially if he will deliver it for that.

The oil leak and rust. Don’t know.. to be fair at that age and milage it’s what I would expect.

The paint work I would disagree is minor. The key word is ‘know what you are doing’. I don’t and any body work is expensive. That sai I would have thought you could get panels spreaders for £250-500 each?

I don’t know, none of it would concern me at that price.

regarding the 940 and 960. If I ever saw a 940 in good nick I would probably go for it. But the 940 is really not a 960 is it… no list V6 for a start. And that would kind of seem the whole point to me.

I take it you have the XC90 - same engine as my XC70.... the more modern engine has to be smoother and nicer overall. I'll let you know when Ive had a drive of it. I don't want to go back to the days of my 740 which was thirsty, clunky and had lots of points on the revs when it kinda had a hump to get over before reving some more.

If I miss one thing about the xc70 it was that I' stuck behind a dawdler, I see a space ahead and I floor it and in one smooth action it changes down, revs up and takes off.

The 960 has a straight 6, not a V6.

I bought a 1997 V90 Lux 3.0 from another member on here for £900 earlier this year. A bit higher mileage but with a longish MOT, excellent paint and bodywork and not really in need of anything too much although I’ve been doing a bit of a rolling restoration on it. As such I think this one is overpriced.

Things that would specifically concern me are:

Looks quite rusty on the inner wing above the battery tray
Looks like it’s been filled with red (possibly OAT) coolant
The MOT has highlighted widespread rust
The engine bay looks unloved
The bodywork repairs - respray bonnet and replace wing could prove expensive
The shock absorbers needed replacing early on according to the MOT - hard life?
Doesn’t look like the cover over the spark plugs and coils has been off in a while
The outside of the allegedly newish serpentine belt looks very polished
There’s something weird in the boot floor near the handle

Personally, if I were interested, my target price would be less than I paid for my V90. Not more.

Good luck if you decide to go for it.

I’d avoid it. It’s too expensive for a significant project, and there are signs the owner has done stuff on the cheap (eg budget front tyres)

Peeling lacquer is only going to get worse and isn’t an ‘easy job for people who like detailing’ as the ad says. You need a body shop to attend to it and do a proper job. Think about £3 to £500 and you won’t be far off. The corrosion advisories are consistent, and the owners commentary about leaving the crust in place isn’t the best advice I’ve heard.

Forrest is right - the V90 he bought off here had been well cared for and it was a great price. I was quite tempted.

I wouldn’t touch this, it’s showing signs of long term lack of use and neglect, and an owner that wants as much as he can get for something that needs time and money throwing at it to keep it alive. I wouldn’t be paying more than £600. Even then, I’d regret not being patient and waiting for a better one.

If you’re going to see it, I suspect you will get suckered in and end up buying it. Forrest’s advice above is sound. I’d add to it by wanting evidence that he’s used good brand oil and spares for the work he’s done - but he won’t, he’s fitted budget tyres, and will have used the cheapest bits he can get his hands on.

Thanks again for the advice. Eternal Optimist - I agreed to see it so I'm going anyway as the guy seems reasonable. I can't hold wanting as much as he can get for it against him but don't worry, I won't get suckered in if it ain't right.

I am finding gone are the days when you could get a decent estate with 100k for less than a grand - I think Forrest, you have done well with yours and the person who sold it probably let it go for a song - have passed. I have been looking at quite a few now and I have seen some right lemons. More so on the 940 front than the 960s.

What is the weird thing you are looking at next to the boot floor handle? Looks like a lock.

We'll see. I'll let you know.

I thought this one sounded very reasonable but is no longer available, sold or got pulled over the weekend. If it had been nearer would maybe have followed it up. Especially off a guy called Albert, doubt he is a boy racer.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Volvo-940...p2047675.l2557

It’s strong money for a car with a few issues. It looks decent, but I’d be looking to spend £800 on it.

That said, given how difficult it is now to find a really good 940 for under £2500, the 960/V90 region still represents a great deal of car for the money. You can probably chip him on it a little as most buyers want the 3.0 6 pot rather than the 2.5, but the 2.5 is still a decent motor and is relatively unstressed, even in such a big car. I’m not sure about his claims regarding fuel economy on the 2.5 vs the 3, but I’ve not owned one with the 6cyl motor.

I currently have an auto V70 mk1 with the 5 pot whiteblock, and it’s plenty quick enough, so I would imagine having the same motor in a 960 would be sufficient.

Are you close enough to view it?

I found it odd he states just changed the front tyres but they have done 20K. Would have done better putting tread depth on them.
That is one thing my previous 940s, assume 960s no different was tyres did not last a great amount time.
Also not sure what he means by good fuel economy. On a good run in top gear you might achieve 30mpg.

The 2.5 in a 960 is still a straight six

Exactly. Have a look at:

https://www.volvoclub.org.uk/press/p...95.pdf#page=11

As I suspected, the 2.5 and 3.0 engines are identical except for the "bore and stroke" so there is not going to be a noticeable difference in weight.

I don't think Volvo ever quoted a vast difference in fuel economy either unless comparing the auto to the manual variant of the 2.5.

The 3.0 Is 204hp and the 2.5 Is 170hp

I had no idea of that! 200BHP in a car that soze will no doubt be pretty swift. 170BHp must be a noticeable drop…

the 204bhp 960 was 9.1 0-60 when new with a top speed of 131

940 HPT is 9.3 0-60 and 127mph but it feels faster and has much more tuning potential that the 960 doesnt have

You are wrong. I had a 760 with the 2.3 redblock HPT same as the 940 HPT. It is easily quicker than the 3.0. By far the quickest volvo Ive ever driven in. If you tune them even quicker still. In such a big car it is the torque figures that really give that feel and the turbo has some major torque when it gets turning.

You know its quick when the biggest problem with accelerating is that the g forces give you neck ache...lol

A 760 turbo is faster than a 940 HPT as it has 17hp more, the 760 has 182hp with a 531 head, A cam and Garrett T3 turbo.

The 940 has a 530 head, T cam (drives like a diesel) and Mitsubish 13C turbo.

I'm comparing the 960 to the 940 HPT so I am in fact correct :teeth_smile:. The 760 turbo had a Garret Turbo and produced 180bhp. Standard 0-60 was 8.5 but top speed was slower at 121mph

Beat me to it Luke :teeth_smile:

That is... correct :tongwink:

Just dug my owners handbook out for a 1988 760.

It actually has two listed

B230ET
182hp @ 5800rpm
260Nm @ 3420rpm
9:1 compression
98/4 star octane required
Motronic

B230FT
156hp @ 4800rpm
242Nm @ 3300rpm
8.7:1 compression
LH-Jetronic
91 unleaded

I assume the FT would be LH2.2 and I don't think we got it over here.

It also says at the bottom that all Volvo engines can be ran on unleaded and that all Volvos that can run on it have green fuel caps.

Okay - that explains it. I had the ET but some of the sensors were failing and I had to do alot of research to fault find which ones using a multimeter and a schematic of the ECU which was possibly playing up too. The sensors themselves were hard to find and expensive and in the end I think the car went to scrap because the scrap price was so good.

I swore I wouldn't do a turbo again.

Its sad to think now because I think alot of nice cars went to the scrap heaps end of the nineties.

Direct quote from the ebay listing :

"After I did all components of the front brakes the ABS warning light is on. I haven't fault finded the cause but there must be a sensor. There is no electrical component to the ABS apart from the light, it is entirely mechanical and works perfectly as tested in last winters heavy snow and by my MOT tester last year."

Wholly incorrect as the ABS system is the Bosch ABS-2E system which is electronic and has self-diagnostic facilities built in which can be accessed by the "not quite OBD" readers available.
Could be a cheap/easy fix because he disturbed some dirt/rust while doing the brakes that has effected the front wheel sensors or it could be more serious. Also from the pics, the back end is saggy so will need something (probably expensive) on the rear suspension.

I think it's overpriced at the moment, the lack of MoT history is worrying (because you can't look it up due to no reg number) and the fact he misquotes the mileage.

Hi Dave

He did supply the OP with the reg. it's M269 YCE.

You are correct in the fact that he is talking complete bo**oks about the ABS as well. That would worry me as he either knows nothing about them or is a chancer !!

My thoughts exactly Mark about the ABS - missed where the reg number was supplied but had a look at the MoT history, nothing wildly scary but a repeated comment over a few years was "general underbody corrosion".


M269YCE VOLVO 960

Check another vehicle
Colour Maroon
Fuel type Petrol
Date registered 30 March 1995
MOT valid until 8 August 2021

Get an MOT reminderwhen the vehicle's MOT is near its time for renewal. (Opens in a new Window) by email or text.
If you think the MOT expiry date or any of the vehicle details are wrong, contact DVSA.

Check mileage recorded at test, MOT expiry date, defects and advisories, and view test certificate
Date tested 16 July 2020
Pass
View test certificate
Mileage 104,293 miles
MOT test number 6976 7168 3854
Test location
View test location
Expiry date 8 August 2021
Repair as soon as possible (minor defects):

Windscreen damaged but not adversely affecting driver's view (3.2 (a) (i))

Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):

Front Sub-frame corroded but not seriously weakened (5.3.3 (b) (i))
Rear Sub-frame corroded but not seriously weakened (5.3.3 (b) (i))
Front Anti-roll bar ball joint has slight play both (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Front Tyre worn close to legal limit/worn on edge both (5.2.3 (e))
Central Exhaust has a minor leak of exhaust gases (6.1.2 (a))

What are advisories?
Date tested 9 July 2019
Pass
View test certificate
Mileage 96,917 miles
MOT test number 3065 4004 5212
Test location
View test location
Expiry date 8 August 2020
Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):

Vehicle structure is corroded but structural rigidity is not significantly reduced (6.1.1 (c) (i))
Oil leak, but not excessive (8.4.1 (a) (i))

What are advisories?
Date tested 31 July 2018
Pass
View test certificate
Mileage 90,565 miles
MOT test number 5691 3926 8072
Test location
View test location
Expiry date 8 August 2019
Repair as soon as possible (minor defects):

Offside Rear Registration plate lamp inoperative in the case of multiple lamps or light sources (4.7.1 (b) (i))

Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):

General under body corrosion
O/s/f lower wing holed, but not structural
Both rear brake hose ferrules to calipers slightly deteriorated

What are advisories?
Date tested 25 July 2018
Fail
View test certificate
Mileage 90,542 miles
MOT test number 3440 4811 9738
Test location
View test location
Do not drive until repaired (dangerous defects):

Nearside Rear Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm in certain areas (5.2.3 (e))

Repair immediately (major defects):

Offside Front Windscreen wiper does not clear the windscreen effectively (3.4 (b) (ii))
Front Registration plate inscription illegible (0.1 (b))
Offside Front Track rod end ball joint has excessive play (2.1.3 (b) (i))
Nearside Front Lower Anti-roll bar ball joint dust cover no longer prevents the ingress of dirt (5.3.4 (b) (ii))
Offside Rear Tyre has a cut in excess of the requirements deep enough to reach the ply or cords tread area split cord just visible (5.2.3 (d) (i))

Repair as soon as possible (minor defects):

Offside Rear Registration plate lamp inoperative in the case of multiple lamps or light sources (4.7.1 (b) (i))

Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):

General under body corrosion
Both front brake discs slightly worn / corroded
O/s/f lower wing holed, but not structural
Both rear brake hose ferrules to calipers slightly deteriorated
Unable to clearly inspect condition of vehicle brake pads


For the record, the only car i can bring to mind that actually used a mechanical ABS system was the Jensen Interceptor FF back in the late 60s/early 70s, system was develop by Dunlop IIRC but i don't think was used on any other vehicles.

This Volvo could be a good car but seems like it will need some imminent TLC on the bodywork/chassis.

It seems the late 960's and V90's seem to suffer from worse underbody corrosion tha 940's and 740/760's. I remember another member looking for one recently who experienced similar issues.

I did not know that, thanks for the correction. Every day is a school day! I figured that the 500cc drop was done by losing a pot and it was the same 5 pot 2.5 whiteblock in the 850/V70.

Any ideas as to why the 2.5 models were made/what market they were aimed at? It seems like a lot of effort to re-engineer the six cylinder engine with smaller bores, longer rods and shorter stroke when the 3.0 came first and the 2.5 produces 30hp less and seems to return similar fuel figures.

Not 100% sure really. The 2.5 was introduced in model year 1995 and seemed to be more commonly mated to the manual box.

Probably Italy and/or Japan or similar countries with tax-breaks for having engines under a certain size. Something in the back of my mind says it around 2.8L at the time the 960 was made that made for an £OUCH tax bracket in Italy.

Maybe so but my 960 is a killer at overtaking the 50 to 80+ is epic and leaves many behind wondering what the green brick shaped blur was and the straight six is smooth..

IMO they were introduced for the caravanners, especially as it was offered with the M90 'box, and everyone knows the slushmatic seems to poo itself if towing anything heavy (like a caravan) up a long incline.

Slightly sneakily though, Volvo fitted the ridiculous 4.1:1 diff, meaning 0-60 times weren't too much slower than the 3.0's, however at the expense of being at 3,000rpm at 70mph.
For comparison, my 940 Turbo would sit at 70 at a more reasonable 2,250rpm.

Cheers

You now know the B230FT was sold here Luke! :thumbs_up:

Everyone knows though the FT (and FK!) should be run at 12-13psi for a nice ~185bhp :D

Cheers

I was on about a redblock with LH2.2 Dave :)

What's under the bonnet of your blue 765 Turbo Luke? Does it have a cat and a Lambda sensor?

It doesn't have a cat, haven't looked in to the engine bay too much and I won't fir a while now