Life begins at 40 - 200 series

[jetronic63]

Couldn't agree more John, every time I jump into the 240, I am surprised how few compromises I have to make over driving a new car. It goes well (even with a NA 230E ), handles well with reasonable balance and also cruises well on motorways. It has also never let me down in 8 years which is pretty exceptional for a 25 year old car that cost me £250. Should have been included in James Mays 'peoples car' rundown I think - a 240 seems to be the definition of a peoples car.

[volvo always]

Mine still puts a smile on my face after 5 years of ownership and been faultless and for £350 a great buy. After driving a Saab 9-3 saloon loan car and doing 430 miles in a Peugeot partner works van I loved getting into my comfortable and quiet GLT automatic.
It's so ergonomically designed and can find the switches in the dark and not look for them like in the Saab or Peugeot.
Peugeot noisy and not that comfortable. Saab stupid idea of having to put in reverse when parked and started. Window switches down by the handbrake and not on the doors. Glad to give it back as it was a petrol and seemed worse MPG wise than my 240!!
I plan to keep my 240 for as long as possible and this is why I spent £800 on parts and labour to keep it in good order.

James

[john h]

Originally Posted by volvo always

Mine still puts a smile on my face
James

Likewise.
This is my second most important test for a car - does it have the smile factor?
(The most important being can it be relied on to get from A to B)

Originally Posted by volvo always

I plan to keep my 240 for as long as possible and this is why I spent £800 on parts and labour to keep it in good order.

I think a 240 can run almost indefinitely if, as you are doing, the maintenance is kept up with (including bodywork rust-proofing/repairs). Also, the 240 design makes DIY maintenance very easy, even for less experienced people, and therefore it gives the option of very much cheaper maintenance if you choose.

Some of my work colleagues question the logic of spending significant money on maintaining an old car, but the point they always miss is that their modern car is depreciating several hundred pounds per month.


John

[heckflosse]

Exactly!
why spend a fortune each month on some silver blob that is depreciating quicker than shares in a Russian oil firm?
As for the reliability, the 240 would be an ideal choice for a long distance rally, paris/peking sort of event. Strange that the factory was so lukewarm about rallying in the mid seventies-they did have a go with 140s(Per Inge Walfriddson? was the driver?), but the passive safety lobby were in full flow at that time.
The Volvos of today are from a totally different mentality.
Plus I'm a dinosaur!

[volvo always]

Originally Posted by john h

Likewise.
This is my second most important test for a car - does it have the smile factor?
(The most important being can it be relied on to get from A to B)



I think a 240 can run almost indefinitely if, as you are doing, the maintenance is kept up with (including bodywork rust-proofing/repairs). Also, the 240 design makes DIY maintenance very easy, even for less experienced people, and therefore it gives the option of very much cheaper maintenance if you choose.

Some of my work colleagues question the logic of spending significant money on maintaining an old car, but the point they always miss is that their modern car is depreciating several hundred pounds per month.


John

Absolutely I had the outriggers on both sides welded for £120+vat.
Have a can of wax oil to spray the cavities and underneath shortly and repaired the inner lip on the rear wheel arches to keep the tin worm at bay a few weeks ago one weekend.
Even painted all the black trim black again and re-fixed the bumper top trims with new clips and got a used hockey trim and painted the virgo wheels silver!
Having a job now enables me to get the work done but unfortunately no time to do most of the work myself as working full time. Currently doing 10,000 miles a year but should be getting a Peugeot partner from my employer which I can use for private use for 13 pence a mile. My 240 now has a mere 206,000 miles.
I had the following done either by me or the garage.
Timing belt and tensioner. Water pump gasket. Rear engine heater hoses. Front brake pads. New exhaust from downpipe on. Handbrake adjusted, Seized spark plug removed. New plugs HT leads and rotor arm and cap. Oil and filter change and wheel balancing and tracking. All genuine Volvo parts from FRF.

James

[DW42]

I live in a more or less rust-free environment, and there are lots of 20+ year-old cars on the road. The most sought-after older cars for daily use seem to be E-Class Mercedes (W124 series), 3-series BMWs from the 80s and 90s, and RWD Volvos (especially late model B230F manual). Nice examples for sale at a realistic price are sold very quickly. The last 740 that came up near me sold within a few hours of the ad being placed on Gumtree. These are not the old cars that you see around all the time however -- the local mechanic who services the AC on my 240 always seems to be shuffling around a car park crammed with ageing Korean cars trying to get at the next one that needs his attention. The most common older cars here are big Holdens and Fords, which also need a lot more repairs than our Volvos as they age. I think we are on to a pretty good thing with our 240s: low purchase price, high reliability and practicality.

[Jungle_Jim]

Originally Posted by john h

My view is that Volvo of this era were ahead of the curve in terms of safety (all aspects, from good seats and ventilation to brakes and crumple zones). Less celebrated, but Volvo also were ahead of most in emissions control.

In terms of style, the 200 looked what it was to me - a facelift of a 1966 car. Nowadays, this is a big bonus, in my opinion, for classic ownership - very old characterful looks and feel, but with the capabilities of a more recent car. But back in the 1980s I think Volvo were painfully aware that the 200 had the 1960s stance and proportions of the 140. I believe that the black tape and cladding that Volvo kept adding throughout production of the 200 were somewhat desperate attempts to make the car slightly less old-fashioned looking alongside ever lower/wider/sleeker modern competition.

In other areas of engineering, I think Volvo deliberately decided not to take a lead role, for valid reasons. A live axle was old-hat in this class of car even in 1974, and this was the first Volvo with McPherson struts, rack and pinion steering, OHC, all technologies that had been around for decades with other manufacturers. I think Volvo choose reliability and ease of maintenance over technical advance. I'm sure they were also aware of their relatively small size as a car manufacturer, meaning that the development budgets were nowhere near the likes of GM and Ford - and big warranty claims on new innovations carry the risk of bankruptcy for a smaller car manufacturer (ask Citroen and NSU).

Instead they honed fairly old technology to optimise it, similar to the approach Mercedes took at that time. This is why 240s last so long and are such great classics to own and work on! They have the looks and driving feel of a much older car, but with easy DIY maintenance, good reliability, handling, comfort and safety - and acceptable running costs. An ideal combination for a classic car.

John

Good points John H
Yes clearly it was probably only really in safety (and emissions as you mentioned) that Volvo was miles ahead of the pack, particularly in the 60s and 70s.

And yet with the 240 what a masterstroke to put cutting edge safety features together with... anything but cutting edge mechanicals!! (Apart from brakes - who else had 4 wheel discs with dual calipers on the front?) Talk about getting the priorities right.

Your point about it being a facelift of a 1966 car is obviously true, but, looking back to second half of the 70s (I was a child), I never saw the 240 just as a facelifted 140. It looked like a very modern car with its pointy snout and bumper-car bumpers. In many ways I also thought of the Saab 99 - 900 in a similar way - which always seemed very modern and you never thought 'oh they're still trying to tart up a 1968 body'. Neither car had the stance of a typical new car of the day (during the 80s), but at the time people probably thought that the Swedes just had an idiosyncratic style.

And I guess there's not that many cars which were built for so long, and were let to gradually evolve like the 140/240 was. Mine is a late 240 and it's rock-solidness comes partly from a sense that everything is totally sorted. It's definitely in its favour that they didn't try to make drastic new additions, and it would have been really really awful if they'd attempted to stick a new nose on it sometime during the mid 80s.

It seems to me that a late 240 with the Jetronic 2.4 is a good combination of old-school simplicity plus with an engine management system which keeps the engine running well but yet isn't too rocket-science. The brakes and most of the other systems are rock-solid without having loads of wiring and crap, and you can get your head around the engine management system. All in all a great set of ingredients for keeping a car on the road.

John

[heckflosse]

Originally Posted by Jungle_Jim

Good points John H
Yes clearly it was probably only really in safety (and emissions as you mentioned) that Volvo was miles ahead of the pack, particularly in the 60s and 70s.

And yet with the 240 what a masterstroke to put cutting edge safety features together with... anything but cutting edge mechanicals!! (Apart from brakes - who else had 4 wheel discs with dual calipers on the front?) Talk about getting the priorities right.

Your point about it being a facelift of a 1966 car is obviously true, but, looking back to second half of the 70s (I was a child), I never saw the 240 just as a facelifted 140. It looked like a very modern car with its pointy snout and bumper-car bumpers. In many ways I also thought of the Saab 99 - 900 in a similar way - which always seemed very modern and you never thought 'oh they're still trying to tart up a 1968 body'. Neither car had the stance of a typical new car of the day (during the 80s), but at the time people probably thought that the Swedes just had an idiosyncratic style.

And I guess there's not that many cars which were built for so long, and were let to gradually evolve like the 140/240 was. Mine is a late 240 and it's rock-solidness comes partly from a sense that everything is totally sorted. It's definitely in its favour that they didn't try to make drastic new additions, and it would have been really really awful if they'd attempted to stick a new nose on it sometime during the mid 80s.

It seems to me that a late 240 with the Jetronic 2.4 is a good combination of old-school simplicity plus with an engine management system which keeps the engine running well but yet isn't too rocket-science. The brakes and most of the other systems are rock-solid without having loads of wiring and crap, and you can get your head around the engine management system. All in all a great set of ingredients for keeping a car on the road.

John

If the Victorians made cars, they would be Volvo 240s.
Self confident, built to last, honest.