Hey everyone, it's been a while since I logged in last. A couple years ago I had to sell my 244 to a great new owner due to life circumstances. I'm finally at a point again where I can consider getting back on the Volvo for life bandwagon. I'm not sure if many of you are familiar with North Dakota, but it's a bit of a desert for decent Volvos. The 244 I got previously was only available due to the passing of the gentleman who owned it. That's the same case now in what I'm about to ask. Not to make light of it, but I guess Volvos really are something you only can pry from a person's cold hands.

So, yesterday I got in touch with the brother of a gentleman who recently passed away and is holding an estate sale. Two of his cars, a 1991 940 Turbo SE and a 960, are being sold for what I think are reasonably prices. Here's the quick rundown on each.

The 1991 940 Turbo sedan used to be his commuter to a coal plant about 40 miles one way, each day. As a result, it has a shade over 300,000 on the clock. He left it on a battery tender and rarely used it after he got a Mercedes AMG. The interior is probably a 7.5-8/10 and so is the exterior. Pretty good considering. Allegedly, he parked it since the fuel pump (presumably the high pressure fuel pump) was either out or going out. For a lark, we tried to see if we could start it and wouldn't you know it, the thing started on the second attempt (I probably stopped cranking too early the first time). The idle was low, about 500-600RPM and was shuddering, so I assume it has some issue wither with fuel deliver or air fuel mixture. Cool.

The other vehicle is a 1994 960 sedan. He apparently took turns using this when he wasn't using his AMG, but it had fairly low miles at a little over 116K. The back story on this was that he bought it from a dealer and the previous owner didn't change the timing belt on time. A couple of the valves kissed the pistons on this white block and he took it upon himself and a mechanic friend to do the fix. They replaced the timing belt, replaced the head, the valves and the pistons were fine, so they were left as is (this is what I was told). The main thing I noticed was that there was some oil dripping from the engine drain plug, while the transmission looked fine in that regard. The anti-skid plate had some darker oil pooled in it, but I'm not sure if they didn't take that off while doing the head job or if there's some sort of seal leakage.

It drove pretty well during the drive. The only real disconcerting thing that popped up was that while accelerating from a start, first or second gear, what I could only describe as a turbine-like whirring would escalate in speed along with my acceleration. It was made even more obvious when I had the rear wheels on some icier spots. Some preliminary searching suggest it could be anything from a clogged a bad accessory bearing to a clogged PCV or a clogged ATF filter. I'm still not 100% on this yet, though. To it's credit, it idled smoothly and I couldn't hear a lot of valve train noise to speak of. Before I took it for a spin, though, I noticed that the rear wheel wells were dangerously close to the tires. The brother of the deceased man said it always looked that way to him. By the time I came back, I noticed the rear end level was more where it should be, which led me to believe this 960 has the Nivomat shocks. At least this suggests they work.

Now, to the fun part. He's selling the 960 for $2,250 and the 940 for $1,000 if they were purchased separately. He said if I buy the pair, he'd let them go for $2,750. I'm inclined to think this is a pretty good deal. If I did this, I would swap the good tires from the 960 wheels to the 940, as well as any good interior or exterior bits and sell the 960 to subsidize the 940. Even though I didn't really get to take the 940 anywhere, I'm more comfortable with the B230FT than the white block six (especially given this example's history). Plus, it has more of that Volvo character - the 960 seems to have had the character bred out of it. If, for some reason, saving the 940 ends up being a bad idea, I'd just keep the 960 and figure out what to do with the 940. Worst case scenario, I might just buy the 940 for the "non-discounted" price. As a bonus, there's a small chance a friend of mine might let me park one or both in his quonset while I get them sorted, which would help a lot.

So that's the situation as it stands. The wife gave me her blessing regardless of what I decide, but I'm still on the fence. Does anyone have any suggestions or input? Thanks in advance!

 

for what its worth, the 1991 940SE is actually a '960 turbo' in the same sense of the 760 turbo.... a 4 cyl turbo mated to the 960 upgraded chassis/interior. They did this because the whiteblock i6 wasn't ready in time.

I know the 940SE and regular 940 *look* pretty much the same, but there's a lot of subtle differences besides the engine, the biggest being completely different dashboard, climate control, and dashboard wiring,relays/fuses. most 960 sedans have IRS, I dunno about the 940SE Sedan (I've only seen a 940SE wagon up close, the wagons were all live axle until 1995 or 96). other differences, the SE and 960's have more soundproofing, the chassis and front suspension have some additional bracing that makes it quieter on the road, and they have a nicer 15" alloy compared with the regular 940 'aries' rims (aries bend way too easily).

the 960 I6 is a /sweet/ smooooth engine, mated to an electronically shifted 4-speed, it definitely ups the luxo factor of the rode. We had a 93 960 wagon, then a 1996 S90 sedan (same basic car with a facelift).

 

Thanks for the reply and clarification, pierce. Would it be accurate to say the 940SE in this case is more "basic" version of the 960? I'm also not sure if it has the nivomat rear shocks, but I don't recall it having the same sagging issue even though it had been sitting for some time.

To be honest, only two things are holding me back from opting for the 960. The first is the whirring/whining sound coming from the front of the vehicle during acceleration as described. It's possible that a tensioner or cam follower (or who knows what else) wasn't reinstalled correctly during the rebuild or that one of those components has simply failed. The second thing is the possibility of the nivomat suspension failing.

Even though the 940 has oodles of miles, I somehow feel more comfortable with the familiar B230 engine in turbo flavor than a rebuilt white block. If it was your money, which would you choose?

 

the turbo redblock and the aw71 tranny are definitely simpler/cheaper to maintain/repair.

my son's 940SE wagon had nivomats, but I dunno about the sedan, it probably did, Volvo basically put everything they had into the 760/960 lineups.

 

If I'm honest, I'd save that $2700 to purchase one good Volvo with some money left for parts. Building one good car from these two will take time, and you'll have to make extra space for the donor.

How are the interiors on these? Headliners can be a bear on sedans.

 

Thanks for the input, 92Sedan. I'm actually not planning on doing a build. My goal is to clean up the nicer 960 and flip it for a profit and try to get the 940 running. If that doesn't work out, I'll sell the 940 as-is. Then I'll keep the 960 for the time being, get it caught up on maintenance, then drive it for a while. I only commute one day a week, so it won't be a huge amount of miles. Incidentally, the headliners on both are in good shape and not sagging.

Normally, I'd take your advice and buy a nicer one with my money tied up in both, but there's not many RWD Volvos around here. I've been searching ever since I was forced to sell my 244 and there's nothing in a 300-400 mole radius. These are 10 miles away and I prefer not to deal with shipping one bought on Ebay or do a long trip to buy one.

 

Anytime

If you're looking for profits I dont know how much you're going to get for that 960. White blocks arent super desirable in the Volvo community.

I wouldn't pay more than $1500 for it myself, sounds like it was neglected quite a bit. You will be replacing bushings, gaskets, etc, and probably interior bits.

Id personally wait for another one.

Edit: https://volvoforums.com/forum/volvo-260-760-960-28/question-regarding-volvo-960-1997-a-86471/

That thread has some info on the 960 series.

 

If you are doing it to flip and make money then forget it you will lose your shirt. I don't see enough room to make it worth the effort. I think 92Sedan might be right by advising you to look for a better one. In my area I see neglected 940's for $600-$1,500 and from time to time I will see a well taken care of example for $2,000-$3,000. By the time you finish fixing the $600-$1,500 ones you are already at or close to $2,000 and you still have a car that is in rougher shape than the $2,000-3,000 examples. Cosmetics (paint and interior) is more expensive than mechanicals due to the simplicity and toughness of the drivetrain found in these cars.

 

It would appear the 940 in question was actually just a 940 Turbo, not an SE. So, does that mean my 940 is actually more closely related to a same year 740? I guess it doesn't really matter, just curious. I'm not sure how I overlooked the fact that it didn't have body-colored trim, but I'll blame the -18°F weather for my oversight. Overall, the 940 interior is pretty darn good, but I'm thinking about swapping the 960 seat into it. That should be a nearly plug-and-play sort of thing, right?

 

Right! Plug n Play for the seat. The 940 seat is probably manual? Still, no problem...
And yes, the '91 940 is quite like a '91 740--hard to tell them apart... just a few minor "upgrades" on the 940.

 

if the 940 doesn't have power seats, it won't have the power connectors for them

 

Incidentally, it does have power seats. However, I've been reconsidering, since the seats on the 940 have a wider seat cushion whereas the ones on the 960 are more sporty. They are both the same color, though.

By the way, I swapped the driver side door panel from the 960 to the 940. I'm having a beast of a time getting the carpeted insert to bite on all 3 white clips. Any suggestions are appreciated since everything out there says installation is the reverse of removal.

 

I have a 1987 Volvo 240 sedan, which my wife bought new and used as her daily driver and 100 mile/day commuter for a bunch of years.. The odometer stopped at 256251 miles circa 1995, and since then, our various babysitters used it as kid transport car, it was my daily driver for 3-4 years while I fixed it back up, then both my kids learned to drive in it, and both took it to college and on many adventures (they are both outdoors types, into backpacking, rock climbing, deserts and mountains, so it saw a LOT of miles, hah!).

I estimate it has about 400-500000 miles but can't prove it. It has never needed a head gasket. its been through a half dozen timing belts, a couple water pumps, I think its on its 3rd Bosch generator, the AC stopped working a long time ago and since we live in a mild climate when I replaced the radiator about 10 years ago I removed the condenser and some of the plumbing... the original transmission was rebuilt (not swapped) at about 250000 miles.

It still was running strong, and the transmission was in good shape when the 2nd kid parked it in our driveway last year... it does need fixing a water leak thats getting the interior wet when its under constant rains, such that it causes electrical gremlins. dried out, ran fine. it is due for a brake job. the front lower control arms need new bushings to tighten up the front end. all 4 shocks are soft but tolerable.

my 1992 740 turbo wagon that was my daily driver for several recent years, the previous long time owner (it was her mom's car new) had a coolant event and overheated it, so she'd gotten a head gasket job, then later a heater hose had blown, she shut it down but the head gasket was weak, she was tired of dealing with it and had gotten a new car from her mechanic, so I got it cheap. head gasket blew a year later, I had it fixed, runs like new car. has 256000 miles.

as european import cars go, I think the 1988-1995 Volvo 240-740-940 non turbo is probably one of the simplest and most robust cars out there. they aren't new hondas or toyotas, but they are easier to deal and much more solid cars than 20 year old HonYotas.

the wagons are cavernous. my 740 holds like 70 cubic feet of cargo space with the back seat folded. Its 48" wide between those wheel humps and at the /top/ of the hatch, and its 6' long from inside of tailgate to back of folded back seat.




a weeks worth of camping gear, plus astronomy gear, en route to GSSP 2015

the 7/9 wagon payload, including passengers is rated around 1200 lbs, and they can tow 3500 lbs (with trailer brakes). With overload springs, sway bars, and good shocks, I dunno, but I've loaded mine past that, and its still driven very well.

the turbos are about as simple as any turbo system out there, and obviously add some reliability/maintenance issues, but the car about cries for the extra power and torque. the turbo accelerates off the line briskly, while the non-turbo is lazy at best.

I *know* our 240 can cruise at 90-ish but even pushed to the floor probably won't go 100 MPH without a tailwind. my 740 turbo wagon probably goes 120 but I've never had it much over 100, I'm getting too old for that.

 

Their floors dont rust like Infintis, and their automatics dont break as often as Hondas, ditto their distributors.

Volvos dont have the best electronics compared to a Honda, but having decent steel makes up for that. I'd rather have the occasional blown relay than a nasty rust hole at each rear wheel.

Then theres always the timing belt, thats quite a pita on an older Honda, and if you neglect it your "Reliable bulletproof Honda" will be toast. Redblock Volvos wont complain.

At 200k its suspension bits that worry me more than engines.

Ah that carpeted insert, one of the sillier bits of the 7-9 series interiors. Just carefully bend it a little when you try installing it so that the clips meet, if you're fiddling with interiors be prepared to be there for a while.

 

Let me put it this way...I've owned many, many vehicles revered for their reliability: 1990 Toyota Camry, 1983 and 1992 Toyota Land Cruiser, 1982 Toyota Celica Supra, a 1992 Honda Accord, a few SAABs and who knows what all else. Previously, I owned a 1988 Volvo 244, it was a dead solid, reliable car (it was well taken care of, though). Anyway, at 24/25 years old and 307K on the clock, I've NEVER experienced anything that aged as gracefully as this 740 Turbo. The engine bay looks like a vehicle one third or one half its age and mileage (and not much worse than my old 244). The interior is in damn good shape and the exterior is remarkable too. No rust that I've found so far. The car had been sitting on a battery tender for who knows how many months, with an ailing fuel pump no less, and whatever other deferred maintenance. It started up on the 2nd try (I prefer not to crank too long on a sitting vehicle I don't know the mechanical situation of) during a North Dakota with ambient temps around zero degrees...and it wasn't even plugged in. My 244 behaved the same way and I don't know what the special Volvo sauce is, but there's something there. I have the confidence to fix up this old, high mileage beast and keep the odometer moving.

Thanks for the input. I'll keep at it. I was getting toward the tail end of my tinkering session, so I think my mind and fingers were getting tired out. I'll try again tonight.

 

Just out of curiosity, how did the Camry and the Accord fair? My Accord was kinda clunky at just 135k.

 

I didn't keep it very long, but at 165K it felt as if it had all the integrity of a go-kart and shifted about as well. Not really confidence inspiring.

 

If you had an automatic your hydraulic motor mount must have gotten stiff, its a very common fault on older Accords and not entirely a cheap fix. Their bodies had awful sheet metal, imo they're structurally unsafe after 20 years.

How was the Camry? Those are supposed to be a bit sturdier but I've never owned one.

With your carpet insert I would be very careful of the tabs behind the carpet, they're prone to shattering edges. When I did mine I considered fabricating my own insert as the ones in the car were kinda covering up the window switches.

 

The Camry (a wagon, as it so happened to be) was excellent. It felt much more structurally sound and solid. I'd say just a hair below a C900 and slotting somewhere in between a RWD Volvo and the Accord. Pretty impressive. Although the front wheel fenders were bubbling badly, the rest of the body was pretty clean. Mechanically, it worked well and got me 32 hand-calculated MPG combined. Not sure how, but I was pretty impressed. Definitely the apex of the Toyota Golden Age.

I lucked out with the carpet inserts. I just couldn't get all 3 tabs to take after many, many attempts. Even though I probably shouldn't have, I "unscrewed" the white anchors from the back of the door panel and put them in the slot of the carpet panel. Then I popped the whole thing on. Seems to be pretty sure, so no complaints. Doing it 4 times was tough on the fingers, though.

Quick question, by the way. I made sure to swap both front panels between the 940 and 960 respectively. I turned on the 960 and the 4 OHM speakers from the 940 seemed to work fine (wasn't sure how that'd pan out). The battery is still disconnected on the 940, so I can't test that, but shouldn't the 960's 8 OHM speakers work fine in it since they're still both a pair?

 

8 ohm speakers need more volts from the amplifier for the same wattage. most amps have a fixed output voltage, so when used with 8 ohms you get half the wattage you do when used with 4 ohm speakers. wattage is power. an amp designed for 4 ohm speakers won't be damaged by running 8 ohms, it just might be as loud as you want.