Spend Money On Keeping A High-Miler On The Road, Or...?

[john.wigley]

Originally Posted by 57RKL

Question, why do 240s and 940s have a higher proportional survival rate than 740s ?

Do they? I hadn't thought about this, neither seen any figures for survivors vs no. produced. If your premise is correct, might it have something to do with the fact that: a) 900 series cars are newer and one would therefore expect more to be still around; b) 200 series cars are increasingly becoming more widely regarded as classics, and are therefore inclined to be preserved rather than scrapped; whilst c) 700 series cars are still perceived by many as working vehicles and, as such, are not held in any great regard.

Having owned several 2 and 7 series, and one 9 series car, I did not perceive any significant differences in the build quality of each series. I think that 2 series cars are more prone to rust, but, that apart, they are all very robust cars. I preferred the driving characteristics of the 7 to the 2, while the 9, an early one (91H) drove very much like the 7.

Our '87 745 died of terminal corrosion earlier this year, and we would have no hesitation in replacing it with a good late 9 series car, in the full expectation of getting another 10 years of safe, reliable and, yes, economical motoring from it.

Superb cars, all, but dated with the advances in technology since they were current. Whether or not you consider this to be a good or a bad thing would be the subject of a different discussion.

Kind regards, John.

[Prufrock]

The poster's premise is an assumption.

In the wider classic car world the 240 and 700 are not regarded as classics - with exception of perhaps the GLT and 740T - and I'd rather not get into an argument about what might be (a classic in the future). That there might be more 240s and 940s on this forum* (than 700s) is not indicative of much - it certainly doesn't support an argument for the 700s demise due to poor plastics (the poster's dogmatic inference).

Written widely about in the club magazine. Volvo's production figures** (estates) are interesting - 240, followed by 740 and 940 (first 3 yrs production) -

82-83: 71295
83-84: 85729
84-85: 68188

1985: 7015
85-86: 54983
86-87: 53915

90-91: 52508
91-92: 29936
92-93: 34618

**not UK sales figures.

I perceive there are more late cars, 240s and 740s on this forum, than earlier cars. This is due, in part, to Volvo (in the UK) introducing the 2.0 litre engine in both for Benefit-in-Kind tax reasons and more sold than had previously when Volvo only offered the 2.3 litre engine.

This is obvious, but worth saying; if your experience is owning any 200/700/900 that has had many owners (some uncaring), then clearly there's going to be damage; the newest 740 is now 24 years old and the oldest (like my 745) 30 years old - my car had one owner for 25 years of it's life and he looked after it, and he was a typical professional Volvo owner.

I have a friend who used to look after fleets of these when they were new, and I myself ran them for Volvo, we had very few issues with the cars in their early lives...once they got older and cheaper they deteriorate. Apologies for this lengthy post - I doubt the plastic poster will be interested; and as register keeper I make no apologies for my enthusiasm for the 700 series.

Jon
700/900 Register Keeper VOC.

*forum members and car ownership is a fleeting and ephemeral thing, many owners of 700s or 900s then move onto a V70 or other more modern Volvo: and are therefore only enthusiasts for the car they are driving at the time (I'd like to know more about this if I'm making sense).

And these last few posts take us way off topic thanks to...

[GMcL]

Originally Posted by Clan

Ford parts and cost cutting filtered in around 2005 model year , we are still lumered with them now of course but on the way out in the next year or so .

The ble badge signified network wiring systems , not sure if that is what it was meant to signify !

Yep, in the late 90s they were queuing round the block to buy Volvo. Obviously Volvo management opted for the lowest offer. Would you say the quality is better now?

I only have a Volvo of 2005 to compare with one from 2011 and based on those back to back S60s I'm giving Volvo a miss next time. I'm looking at an Alfa Romeo, that's what I think of Volvo build quality.

[stephend]

Originally Posted by Prufrock

I don't entirely disagree with your first paragraph, but clearly if a car has severe corrosion (I've never had one of those personally), then it may be uneconomic (one person's uneconomic might not be mine) to repair. But multiple mechanical issues...I'd still have to question neglectful previous or current owners.

I think myself that it's one of those grey areas. My V40 being a case in point: it had a full Volvo history, with plenty of evidence of servicing and repairs, when I bought it. What decided me to get rid was a combination of: (1) the climate control and demister system developed major problems, (2) rear brake discs kept rusting up, and (3) I suspected the clutch was on its way out. (1) is a known issue with S/V40s and clearly falls into your "digital" category; (2) I think was a design issue, because I haven't had any problems on my other all-disc cars, with the same driving pattern and maintenance regime; and (3) who knows? - but I've never had clutch problems on other cars, so not me, guv!

Likewise my 740: regularly serviced, 3 years Volvo, then 15 years at my local garage before I got it, and staying with them for 10 years since. Head gasket started to let go at 150k. I was quoted £500 to repair, so I did it myself. I also ended up renewing the Nivomats. Now the gearbox bearings are getting rather vocal at 215k: at some point, I'll have it overhauled, or a recon 'box fitted. It also has the usual 740 instrument cluster problems. Oh, and sagging headlining (sorry, Jon!). I've spent a lot more in repairs than the £400 I bought it for, and that's not entirely rational, but there you go!

If you're not in a position to do your own servicing, to some extent you're in the hands of whatever garage you choose to use. My own experience with independents has been good; with chains and franchised agents, not so good. Certainly if you're so neglectful as never to service your car you can expect it to fail - but I keep mine serviced pretty meticulously by what I believe to be a good independent, and that hasn't always kept them problem-free.

Corrosion: we had a FIAT Uno which failed its MoT on corrosion, and were advised it was uneconomic to repair. Yes, I know, it was a FIAT - but it was after SAAB consulted with them on corrosion protection.

[schicksal]

Originally Posted by domhart10

Ive named mine, he's like a pet. Cant let him go, will keep him through all the hard times!

Same with ours. Our '92 960 dates back to when Mrs. Schicksal was just girl that Schicksal was dating and she needed something cheap to get around in since her Saturn was totaled. The car was in terrible cosmetic shape, filthy and had a lot of small things wrong that I sorted for her. She drove it around for almost 6 years but the gearbox was rapidly failing and we bought a VW CC for her. The offer for the 960 was basically zero so I garaged it until I could decide what to do with it. She liked the car as much as someone who doesn't like cars possibly could and since it's a Seattle car the plastics and paint weren't destroyed by the sun.

Fast forward to a year ago and we're talking about having our first kid soon. My MB 560SL has only two seats... not great for hauling three people around in but the Volvo is still in the garage and it has a child seat built right in to the back seat armrest. Time to get busy! Long story short, swapping the gearbox led to 10 other things to do while I was in there, which led to 100 more, and the car ended up an empty shell with only the whiteblock, head, camshaft assembly and wiring harness still installed. Interior was fully restored too, headliner was ok but parts of the dash made from black plastic do not survive heat cycling over the years.

The stack of receipts would have been enough to buy something second hand that still had a decent amount of life left, but it wouldn't have been our 960. The car that got her through life as a broke girl in university, that we drove across North America in, and that survived her not understanding that warning lights and gauges on the dash serve a purpose ("What does the red light with a picture of a house mean? Also the temperature needle is red now with a light next to it."). This one is a keeper.

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by stephend

Likewise my 740: regularly serviced, 3 years Volvo, then 15 years at my local garage before I got it, and staying with them for 10 years since. Head gasket started to let go at 150k. I was quoted £500 to repair, so I did it myself. I also ended up renewing the Nivomats. Now the gearbox bearings are getting rather vocal at 215k: at some point, I'll have it overhauled, or a recon 'box fitted. It also has the usual 740 instrument cluster problems. Oh, and sagging headlining (sorry, Jon!). I've spent a lot more in repairs than the £400 I bought it for, and that's not entirely rational, but there you go!

Some interesting points here, and don't worry about mentioning headlinings; I recognise this 700 failing! And despite offering for many years, no-one has ever taken me up on the offer of a headlining masterclass at a National !

Back to my point (and yours). Spending money on a 740 that you've owned for some time is never wasted, if I spent £1000 on mine it would be as good as it could be, and a whole lot better than any other car I could buy for that money.

Your headgasket failed, and good on you for tackling that (not meaning to sound patronising), it'll be unlikely that it will need doing again - these are eminently recycleable cars...mine will be around as long as I can drive it - I might be around in 30 years - then the 745 will be 60!

My advice would be that if you are (I know you are Stephen) a long term owner try and buy a spares car - I'm fortunate, like a few others, and have space and if there were more VOC member's with 700s we could probably create a parts cache.

Mind you, despite the 745 being in the family for 29.5 yrs it hasn't acquired name nor gender! Strangely enough my 1986 744 has a name (Harvey) and by default gender (Christian name of the chap who bought it new was Harvey) !

Jon
700/900 Register Keeper VOC.

[57RKL]

Originally Posted by Prufrock

The poster's premise is an assumption.

Assumption ? Remember, we just deal with the facts. So here's some for you for starters.

Volvo 240 2010 Q3 5491 registered cars
2015 Q3 2357 " "
Therefore 42.9% survival rate

Volvo 940 2010 Q3 17503 registered cars
2015 Q3 6874 " "
Therefore 39.3% survival rate

Volvo 740 2010 Q3 7215 registered cars
2015 Q3 2199 " "
Therefore 30.5% survival rate

Volvo 850 2010 Q3 20625 registered cars
2015 Q3 6188 " "
Therefore 30% survival rate

These Dept of Transport statistics clearly show a considerably greater survival rate between the 240s and 940s compared to the 740 which is disappearing at a rate comparable to the FWD 850.

This is the reality, not assumptions

[volvo always]

I owned a 1986 740GLE with B230K engine and red interior that I actually liked. Paid £425 and had it 5 years. The new weber carb had issue's after 4 years and used to rev to 3,000 rpm with the rev counter bouncing from 0rpm to 3,000. I used to clean out the jets and that would sort it. It started to do it more often then px it for a new corolla.
The 740 was my first car and I really liked him. A lot of the switch surrounds were broken but got lucky and got some from a scrapper. On the whole it was a good car.
After the Toyota bought my current car a 1989 240 GLT auto estate for £350 5years ago. I'm the 7th owner and it's been excellent, in fact my best car.

I have liked them both and they both have different traits like 240 more prone to rust 740 and 240 both needed small 2 inch welding patch on outriggers'. 740 wiring loom a bit flaky insulation. 240 heater fan dead and buried in dash. Tailgate loom on 240 break at hinge.

James

[john.wigley]

Originally Posted by 57RKL

Assumption ? Remember, we just deal with the facts. So here's some for you for starters.

Volvo 240 2010 Q3 5491 registered cars
2015 Q3 2357 " "
Therefore 42.9% survival rate

Volvo 940 2010 Q3 17503 registered cars
2015 Q3 6874 " "
Therefore 39.3% survival rate

Volvo 740 2010 Q3 7215 registered cars
2015 Q3 2199 " "
Therefore 30.5% survival rate

Volvo 850 2010 Q3 20625 registered cars
2015 Q3 6188 " "
Therefore 30% survival rate

These Dept of Transport statistics clearly show a considerably greater survival rate between the 240s and 940s compared to the 740 which is disappearing at a rate comparable to the FWD 850.

This is the reality, not assumptions

As Benjamin Disraeli put it: "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.".

I agree that the statistics you quote seem, on the face of it support your case - of which I remain to be convinced, '57RKL'. The flaw, as I see it, in these figures is that you have used the same Reference Period in each case.

Given that the 2 series was introduced in 1974, the oldest car would already have been potentially 36 years old in 2010. Similarly, as the 7 series was introduced 10 years later in 1984, the equivalent car would have been 'only' 26 years old. The oldest 9, introduced in 1991, could only have been a maximum of 19 years old at the time these figures were compiled.

It is reasonable to assume that the younger the car at the time of the survey, the more that are likely to be still on the road. I would suggest that your figures would have more credence if you were to compare the survival rates of cars of the same age, rather than at a fixed point in time.

I have no argument with your selected period for the 9 series, but believe that a corresponding period for the survival of 2 series cars from 1993 - 8, and for 7 series from 2003 - 8, might have been more representative.

Kind regards, John.

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by 57RKL

Assumption ? Remember, we just deal with the facts. So here's some for you for starters.

Volvo 240 2010 Q3 5491 registered cars
2015 Q3 2357 " "
Therefore 42.9% survival rate

Volvo 940 2010 Q3 17503 registered cars
2015 Q3 6874 " "
Therefore 39.3% survival rate

Volvo 740 2010 Q3 7215 registered cars
2015 Q3 2199 " "
Therefore 30.5% survival rate

Volvo 850 2010 Q3 20625 registered cars
2015 Q3 6188 " "
Therefore 30% survival rate

These Dept of Transport statistics clearly show a considerably greater survival rate between the 240s and 940s compared to the 740 which is disappearing at a rate comparable to the FWD 850.

This is the reality, not assumptions

It was an assumption until you provided this very questionable evidence. Plus, you imply that the demise of the 700 series is due to quality of the plastics - how does any evidence, let alone these DoT metrics, support that claim?

Jon.