Seriously?

[Othen]

Originally Posted by BicycleBoy

Cheapest historic (nearly) redblock you'll see in a while:
1983 360GLS, MOT, 60,000 miles Selby £1895
https://www.carandclassic.com/car/C1541520

MOT history tells a scary tale:
https://cartaxcheck.co.uk/free-car-c...y/?vrm=DCP193Y
..."resting" since pre-2006. And barest minimum done to scrape an MOT.
Scariest part is this won't need another.

We were discussing MoT (and coincidently VED) arrangements for historic vehicles the other day, and this type of example gives me some concern.

With great respect to the 300 section of this forum, the 340/360 has never caught on as a classic (in the way that the Amazon and 200 series have, but perhaps the 140 and 740 have not) - that is the market's opinion and not my own. As a consequence I'm not seeing this motor car as having any real historical value that needs preserving for the nation, that being the aim of the VED exemption. This motor car is unloved and has just been pulled out of the hedge under which was stet for the past 20 years because it is nearly 40 years old and so suddenly has a value due to it soon qualifying for MoT and tax exemption, and for no other reason. The bare minimum has been done to get it through a final MoT with a long list of faults and on a set of tyres that probably aren't really safe.

It is inevitable (because folk are generally greedy) that people will take advantage of opportunities like this that are within the letter, but not the spirit of the law. It would not take much (perhaps a fatal accident that makes the headlines in the papers) for an example like this to result in the MoT testing and VED concessions to be withdrawn for historic vehicles.

Just the musings of a middle aged man with a beard over a cuppa and before taking Bob for his first walk.



PS. Notwithstanding all I have said above: I quite like the look of this motor car; if I didn't already have the Barge I'd be there with a trailer to buy it this afternoon. Given a year of tinkering I could turn that into a really nice (if quirky) motor car .

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

We were discussing MoT (and coincidently VED) arrangements for historic vehicles the other day, and this type of example gives me some concern.

With great respect to the 300 section of this forum, the 340/360 has never caught on as a classic (in the way that the Amazon and 200 series have, but perhaps the 140 and 740 have not) - that is the market's opinion and not my own. As a consequence I'm not seeing this motor car as having any real historical value that needs preserving for the nation, that being the aim of the VED exemption.
PS. Notwithstanding all I have said above: I quite like the look of this motor car; if I didn't already have the Barge I'd be there with a trailer to buy it this afternoon. Given a year of tinkering I could turn that into a really nice (if quirky) motor car .

It's a more practical Volvo version of a Porsche 924 Alan, front engine, rear transaxle and a proper enclosed torque tube offering at least some protection from a propshaft spinning at engine speed. That's what the market has never really caught onto. It used to be known as "Volvos secret weapon" because it went like stink (for the time) yet was still safe and practical compared to many other offerings.

I do agree that this particular example could do with more than a dose of TLC but it's all redeemable although you may have to get seriously intimate with your MIG welder for a lot of it. Not sure on panel availability but all the oily bits are easily sourced so it's a very viable car to own as a classic and has a few engineering features that set it apart from other cars of the era and therefore (IMHO at least) qualify it as worth preserving.
It is worrying that part of the sellers sales pitch is focused towards the fact that it's MoT exempt, however i would hope that a true enthusiast would take it on and bring it up to standard, preferably with a voluntary MoT subsmission fairly regularly until it was all up to scratch.

You did mention you were considering selling the Barge, this would be a worthy replacement - get your trailer out!

[BicycleBoy]

Vendor has posted more & better pictures on ebay.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/204220816338
Certified Volvo nut: Torslanda & 940 too...

[Othen]

Originally Posted by BicycleBoy

Vendor has posted more & better pictures on ebay.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/204220816338
Certified Volvo nut: Torslanda & 940 too...

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

It's a more practical Volvo version of a Porsche 924 Alan, front engine, rear transaxle and a proper enclosed torque tube offering at least some protection from a propshaft spinning at engine speed. That's what the market has never really caught onto. It used to be known as "Volvos secret weapon" because it went like stink (for the time) yet was still safe and practical compared to many other offerings.

I do agree that this particular example could do with more than a dose of TLC but it's all redeemable although you may have to get seriously intimate with your MIG welder for a lot of it. Not sure on panel availability but all the oily bits are easily sourced so it's a very viable car to own as a classic and has a few engineering features that set it apart from other cars of the era and therefore (IMHO at least) qualify it as worth preserving.
It is worrying that part of the sellers sales pitch is focused towards the fact that it's MoT exempt, however i would hope that a true enthusiast would take it on and bring it up to standard, preferably with a voluntary MoT subsmission fairly regularly until it was all up to scratch.

You did mention you were considering selling the Barge, this would be a worthy replacement - get your trailer out!

Thank you for that link to the eBay site BicycleBoy, the picture is much clearer now.

I'm not sure the Porsche 924 analogy holds all that much water Dave, but I like the motor car anyway.

If I didn't have the Barge I'm pretty sure I'd be on my way to Selby to collect (with £1,700 in folding money in my back pocket) this afternoon. It is just the sort of project I look out for: just under 40 years old and needing some attention in the areas I'm good at. Being tax free in 15 months, and already MoT exempt would suit me ideally (I wouldn't waste any money on voluntary MoT tests). Not to worry: I won't be needing another project motor car this year.

The seller is pushing the tax/MoT exemption hard, and I would say is trying to sell it into the cheap daily driver rather than the enthusiast market. He seems like a Volvo bloke, so perhaps has exhausted the enthusiast market already (hence advertising on eBay having already given C&C a go). I'm not judging the seller, but I think it is a pity the rules are encouraging people to do that. Perhaps it is the case that the arrangements for historic vehicles are a bit too generous at the moment?

I'm thinking that after the Barge, a 360 like this may make a better next project car for me than a 740.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

I'm not sure the Porsche 924 analogy holds all that much water Dave, but I like the motor car anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_300_Series

"The 300 series was unusual in having the gearbox mounted to the De Dion tube rear axle as a transaxle, with the 2 L models having the driveshaft enclosed in a "torque tube". The rear-mounted gearbox helped with weight distribution, but resulted in an unusually large transmission tunnel, especially by comparison with the contemporary front-wheel drive competitors such as the Mk. III Ford Escort and the Opel Kadett E/Mk. II Vauxhall Astra.

Overall, the 300 series was considered heavy and often underpowered, but reliable and safe by the standards of its day.[3] However, the 360 GLT versions were well regarded by more enthusiastic drivers, with the unusual gearbox location ensuring good weight distribution and unusually good balance and traction.[4] The fuel tank was located ahead of the rear axle, straddling the rear-mounted transmission, the safest possible location and one that ensured consistent handling characteristics whether the tank is full or empty."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_924

Porsche chose a rear-wheel drive layout and a rear-mounted transaxle for the design to help provide 48/52 front/rear weight distribution; this slight rear weight bias aided both traction and brake balance.

There's no arguing the Porsche analogy Alan!

I daresay if you checked the performance figures for a n/asp 924 2.0 and a 360GLT, you would find them fairly similar - the 924 2.0 turbo changes the game though. If memory esrves, the 2.0 n/asp VAG engine first used in the 924 was tweaked to ~125bhp by Porsche, the 360GLT had 115bhp so as you can already see, not a wild amount in it on the power stakes and not much in 0-60 times (both 9.5s) although the Porker manages about 11mph mroe at the top end :

https://www.carfolio.com/volvo-360-gle-14498

https://www.carfolio.com/porsche-924-36652

Same source of figures used for comparative purposes, later 924s had the 2.0 Turbo with 170bhp and a commensurate improvement in 0-60 and top speed figures that a ~50% hike in power gives.

As you can see, not just a shared engine/transmission layout but similar performance, certainly on the n/asp Porsche compared to the 360GLT (also n/asp) and both are fuel injection, the Porshce being K-Jet and the Volvo L-Jet so as near like-for-like as possible.


The other good thing is they used many parts from several other more "popular" vehicle such as Escort brakes (but they worked better in the 300 series than they ever did in their original home!), dizzy cap and rotor arm from various Ford/VAG/Vauxhall/other Volvo models, the GLT got electronic ignition (not sure on the carb 360) so they were (and still are) cost effective to maintain.

Like i said earlier, Volvos secret weapon!

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_300_Series

"The 300 series was unusual in having the gearbox mounted to the De Dion tube rear axle as a transaxle, with the 2 L models having the driveshaft enclosed in a "torque tube". The rear-mounted gearbox helped with weight distribution, but resulted in an unusually large transmission tunnel, especially by comparison with the contemporary front-wheel drive competitors such as the Mk. III Ford Escort and the Opel Kadett E/Mk. II Vauxhall Astra.

Overall, the 300 series was considered heavy and often underpowered, but reliable and safe by the standards of its day.[3] However, the 360 GLT versions were well regarded by more enthusiastic drivers, with the unusual gearbox location ensuring good weight distribution and unusually good balance and traction.[4] The fuel tank was located ahead of the rear axle, straddling the rear-mounted transmission, the safest possible location and one that ensured consistent handling characteristics whether the tank is full or empty."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_924

Porsche chose a rear-wheel drive layout and a rear-mounted transaxle for the design to help provide 48/52 front/rear weight distribution; this slight rear weight bias aided both traction and brake balance.

There's no arguing the Porsche analogy Alan!

I daresay if you checked the performance figures for a n/asp 924 2.0 and a 360GLT, you would find them fairly similar - the 924 2.0 turbo changes the game though. If memory esrves, the 2.0 n/asp VAG engine first used in the 924 was tweaked to ~125bhp by Porsche, the 360GLT had 115bhp so as you can already see, not a wild amount in it on the power stakes and not much in 0-60 times (both 9.5s) although the Porker manages about 11mph mroe at the top end :

https://www.carfolio.com/volvo-360-gle-14498

https://www.carfolio.com/porsche-924-36652

Same source of figures used for comparative purposes, later 924s had the 2.0 Turbo with 170bhp and a commensurate improvement in 0-60 and top speed figures that a ~50% hike in power gives.

As you can see, not just a shared engine/transmission layout but similar performance, certainly on the n/asp Porsche compared to the 360GLT (also n/asp) and both are fuel injection, the Porshce being K-Jet and the Volvo L-Jet so as near like-for-like as possible.


The other good thing is they used many parts from several other more "popular" vehicle such as Escort brakes (but they worked better in the 300 series than they ever did in their original home!), dizzy cap and rotor arm from various Ford/VAG/Vauxhall/other Volvo models, the GLT got electronic ignition (not sure on the carb 360) so they were (and still are) cost effective to maintain.

Like i said earlier, Volvos secret weapon!

It was kind of you to go to such lengths to prove your point Dave, but I'm not sure it changes the price of fish. In the eyes of the world it's just a cooking car, not a Porsche.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

It was kind of you to go to such lengths to prove your point Dave, but I'm not sure it changes the price of fish. In the eyes of the world it's just a cooking car, not a Porsche.

No worries Alan - later cars with the B200K/E engines have Porsche 924/944 parts on them too - dizzy cap, rotor arm and HT leads (or at least the leads are similar, lengths might be different though) so they are £OUCH but fortunately don't fail that often.

That IMHO is the beauty of the 360GLE injection/GLT, it looks like a cooking car but with pretty good performance - maybe not in comparison to a brand new car but compared to other cars of the era, certainly rapid enough to surprise more exotic (and erotic) names than Volvo! Those who don't know will get a serious shock, those who do will laugh their (wheel) nuts off!

[BicycleBoy]

Here's an already historic motor: 1969 144 Cumbria £2000 auction.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/385365357953

That is a peach.
MOTs 2010, 2011 & 2014 (70,000 miles), coincides with last V5 change.

[Moomoo]

I don’t suppose anyone will notice but the breather pipe is somewhat compromised!

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Moomoo

I don’t suppose anyone will notice but the breather pipe is somewhat compromised!

Ha ha Andrew :. I don’t think that bit of garden hose really makes much difference