A little advice please

[Volvon]

Hi folks,

I'm looking at buying a tank soon as I don't think my S40 will pass the Finnish version of the MOT (Which is required when I convert my UK car to Finnish plates). I can use my S40 until April then it has to either be registered as a Finnish car or go into storage (which it will be doing as it has oil leak, leaking exhaust amongst other things that need doing..).

Added to this I am renovating (and moving into) an old house soon so I could really do with an estate to fit everything in an amateur DIY'er needs.

So I have been looking around and the best value cars seem to be 740 & 940's dated around the 1990 mark. I am leaning towards the 740 because the 940 looks a little too big for my needs. Once the house is done I will be using this as my daily driver (especially come winter as they have the engine block heater in here which my UK Volvo doesn't) so I don't want something too big. Although it will be a leftie I will be buying, there is actually a RHD 940 for sale at the moment for £700 which could be bargain as no-one wants RHD cars here really so I'm not ruling out the 940.

• I am noticing there is the choice of 2.0 or 2.3 litre engines. Is one better than the other?
  
• What MPG can I expect out of these? I'll be doing no urban driving and certainly no stop start stuff.
  
• When I go to view a car is there any common faults with these I should look for?
  
• Which models have the best/highest spec? I would like heated seats, elec everything if these came with that spec?
  
• Which model is easiest to work on as I'll be doing 90% of work myself on them.
  
• Are they all RWD or did they make any AWD in this series (sorry if this question is foolish I know very little about this series).

Thank you for taking the time to read this and any help or advice would be very very appreciated. I am not restricted to those models, they are just the ones I have seen for sale recently, so if there are other good cars in the 700/900 series that I have overlooked please do let me know

[Oilydad]

Hi Hyvaa:

There's very little between the 740/940 range as far as size goes, so I'd personally look at the 940's as well.

For doing a renovation job, the big estates will do the job for you handsomely. You can fit an awesome amount of stuff into, and also on top of them.

I've had both the 2.0 Litre Turbo, AND my present 2.3 HPT Turbo. Yes, there's a bit more grunt in the 2.3, but for what you want, a 2.0 would do you fine. Most of the 940's seem to have the 2.3 fitted anyway.

Fuelwise, well I often see people complaining about their fuel consumption, but for such a big versatile car, looked after properly, and NOT used as a street racer, they return decent figures, and they are just so unbreakable.

Sensibly you'll get around 32mpg (non-urban), if used properly. But get on the loud pedal, and you'll pay. every driver is different.

As far a sviewing, the FAQ is your best bet to get to know what to look out for.....my own favourite is simply to listen to the car when it's cold (insist on a cold start), and also to check the dipstick and auto transmission dipstick. If the fluid's filthy.....I walk away, because an owner who can't even be bothered with oil changes, probably han't looked after the car too well either.

Both models are easy to work on. you won't have any problems if you've got a half decent toolkit and some knowledge.....and there's plenty of us on here to help with solving problems of course!

I am pretty sure there's no AWD spec for these models....??

As far as spec goes: Try this post which is recent and still ongoing.

http://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=117287

Good luck. Let us know how you get on.

[Citizen.Agfa]

G'day.

I'm sure The Knowledgeable on here will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware the 940 is essentially a 740 with a facelift, i.e. it is the same size.

Go for the 2.3 every time over a normally aspirated 2.0, difference is astonishing.

2.3 MPG on a run - in excess of 30, always dependent on right-foot-usage, of course!

As for ease of working, the earlier (K-Jet, I think) injection is non-electronic so simpler to handle.

Again as far as I know the 7/9 series were RWD.

Hth, C.A.

[Alasdair1]

2.3 940 definitelty. The 2 litre is a bit sluggish in comparison. I have the 2.3 LPT which gives me about 25-30 mpg. You wouldn't believe the load I can put in it. It also tows some pretty heavy trailer loads as well. Last one was over two tonnes without any problem although MPG was a bit low on that trip. Look at rear shocks because depending on what type are fitted they can be expensive to replace. Apart from that I have had no major problems at all in the last 120000 miles. They are all RWD which makes working on the engine geaqrbox etc excellent due to the amount of space around every thing although they are particularly poor in the snow unless you fit good quality winter tyres.

Alasdair

[RAW]

hi hyvaa,

just like to say that despite the fact that everyone is saying the 2.0 NA engine if considerably less powerful, ours still manages to return 28mpg average, tows our 1300kg caravan comfortably without being strained (dont think we've ever had to use more than 4000rpm towing), and will happily do 90 on the motorway. its not a performance car by a long way, but it is perfectly good. other than that, all i can say is what everyone else has really, they are great cars, really easy to work on, and go on forever if well maintained. oh, and i'm 99% sure there was never a 4wd.

good luck finding one.

Richard

[Oilydad]

Yeah agreed on the 2.0. My last Volvo GLE had the 2.0L Turbo, and it certainly has far more than adequate power and slightly better fuel consumption.

We went to France several times in ours, covering well over 2000 miles on each trip. Lovely cruising at the higher French Autoroute speeds. Effortless.

I also remember coming down from Torquay to Exeter one night five years ago on my way to work. At the bottom of Telegraph Hill, there was quite a lot of traffic coming down from Plymouth on the A38 and just the one gap to get into if I didn't want to get stuck behind several cars, so I floored the accelerator.

Not realising, in the dark, that the main road was quite greasy, it started to drift a bit.........not surprising with 118 on the clock. I tell you....that was a bit scary!! But the acceleration from 70 to 110 on the slight downhill incline was bloody awesome.

But I'm a good boy now....

So certainly don't discount the 2.0 Litre.

[Volvon]

Excellent info thanks guys! It sounds daft but it must have been the camera angles of rear-quarter shots that made the 940 look bigger than the 740. Having seen some of your 940's and read the specs though, a 940 looks perfect. And given a bit of a spit and polish they don't half come up good!

As for handling in the snow/ice, it'll have studded tyres all round. It's been really hard this winter with the S40 on studless winter tyres and that's FWD, so the new car will be studs absolutely no question. Plus the new house is in the middle of nowhere and 2 ferry journeys to the mainland so I doubt the plough's will have us top priority when winter hits!

Thanks for the link oilydad, that's helped, I didn't realise the later specs are the same as the x40 range. CD top spec, then SE, etc. Of course each car can come with any number options fitted so I'll judge each one on an indicidual basis. They basically all come with the winter pack as standard here though which is good.