Input Regarding Buying a Pair of Volvos: 940 and 960

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #21  
Old 01-21-2016, 09:20 PM
brickrunner's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by mphilleo
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.
How was the 1992 Land Cruiser. I have always heard that they are super reliable tanks, that are simple and easy to work on, kind of like our old Volvos. The reason that I ask is because I have been thinking about getting one.
 
  #22  
Old 01-22-2016, 10:27 AM
mphilleo's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 56
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by brickrunner
How was the 1992 Land Cruiser. I have always heard that they are super reliable tanks, that are simple and easy to work on, kind of like our old Volvos. The reason that I ask is because I have been thinking about getting one.
Well, I can only speak of my experience, so yours might differ. First, let me say there's a few parallels to RWD Volvos. They're definitely sturdy-feeling and well built, down to the fasteners. That said, like a RWD Volvo, you're going to have a tough time finding one with lower miles and the ones that are will demand a premium.

There are three things I HATED about the one I got. First, no matter how many times I bled the brake system (the way Toyota intended) and changed the pads, the brake feel was very, very weak and lacking in confidence. The master cylinder was fairly new, but it always felt like there was an orange under the brake pedal (I guess this is common). Second, because its full time 4x4, there are a lot of universal joints and couplings that create a ton of slack in the drive train. It is very noisy and unrefined unless you want to spend a ton of time and money chasing down and fixing the causes of this noise. Think of it as being like a train, where the engine is the locomotive and the drive shafts, transfer case and differentials are the box cars. Starting and stopping, every time, sends a ripple through them, even if you change or grease the U joints. Third the solid front axle is unified with the steering system via birfields at each end. The birfields are a cast iron PITA to rebuild and about $400ish for parts. If you're new to it, you're looking at about 4-6 hours per side. There's no guarantee you'll get all the torque specs perfect. I threw up my hands and sold the LC after I discovered one of the birfields developed a leak not long after the rebuild and started mixing axle grease with the differential fluid.

Like I said, great styling, well built, decent access to the stuff you have to work on but not always "easy." But they are maintenance pigs and I feel that some parts of the drive train will be less forgiving on deferred care (namely front axle and t-case). Everyone has their own opinion, but it just wasn't worth it for me. The driving dynamics weren't charming, they were just crap in my experience. I'd recommend finding the best one you can at the price you can best afford with a stack of maintenance documentation and drive it thoroughly to be sure it's worth it to you.
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mcavoyk
Volvo 260, 760 & 960
6
02-15-2016 04:25 PM
BlaisePascal
General Volvo Chat
0
08-04-2015 02:03 PM
beergrover
For Sale / Trade - Archive
0
10-16-2010 04:21 PM
AlaskaS60
New Members Area
1
02-13-2007 02:11 AM



Quick Reply: Input Regarding Buying a Pair of Volvos: 940 and 960



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 PM.