940 saloon vs. estate.
 

Hello, I am a long time Volvo owner, I have had a 440,480,v70 tdi (wonderful old bus),V40 (1.6, not Volvo's finest hour) and I am currently running a 1994 940 2lt SE saloon.

The option to acquire a 940 2.3 turbo estate has come up. I have been told that the seller wants rid as it is far too thirsty for them. Now my 2l saloon is hardly frugal. Can those with more experience advise me on the possible pitfalls of changing from one to the other?

My driving is mainly local, within 10 miles. My car has just passed it's MOT and the Estate will come with a fresh one.

I love the way the saloon drives and on the occasion that it does get on some decent roads it does get a bit of a thrashing. If I change will I be disappointed?

I don't really need an estate but the mileage is only just over 100k, the saloon is on 170k.

I have never driven a 940 saloon, but I have a 2.3 turbo estate which I throw around all over the place with no worries. I doubt if there will be much difference in the economy, especially with the low mileage you do...What year is the turbo? low mileage examples are getting harder to find now...

1997 for the estate and 1994 for the saloon.
The estate is rather poverty spec with wind up windows in the front. None of my previous Volvos have had this.

If your SE saloon is a turbo and the 2.3 estate is low-pressure turbo you’ll find the estate seems less powerful despite its 300cc advantage. This is my experience owning both 1994 2.0 and 1997 2.3 estates.

Unusually high fuel consumption could be down to a number of factors but in my experience changing the lambda sensor often helps.

The estate can of course be more practical, but you lose the ability to hide things in the boot.

The 2.3 LPT engine can properly keep up in modern day traffic and mine, with a 5 mile commute returns around 25mpg.

I prefer the extra capacity of the estate, a load cover can hide what is in the boot.

I also think the estate is better looking.

I would go for the estate all day long, the 1997 has the better block and M90 gearbox. wind up windows= light weight and less to go wrong!!

When you say better block, what do you mean. I thought all the 2.3l had the B230 engine?

Is the M90 box the one fitted to the V90's?

I agree with what you say about wind up windows, as someone who spent 15 years running a garage before moving on to pastures new, the less electronic guff to fail the better.

There used to be an expression going about that went "if it's got t**s or wheels it's going to be a problem" I would like to add "wires in it" to the statement.

It has sat in its current location for about two years, being MOT'd once year and then parked up. It was last in regular use three years ago but was laid up due to the fuel consumption issue. It did spend at least 5 years off the road between 2009 and 2014, hence the low mileage. But has been kept as a spare car (just in case!?!)

I hope to get it for under £400 and I am certain that my saloon would make this when I decide to move it on. However, I treated her to a valet and polish today and she looks so smart, I really fancy keeping her....

96/97 cars have an improved design with better oil squirters in the block and also the strongest conrods..only really relevant if you are going to tune it...

Whether the fuel consumption 'issue' is a concern or not is a personal matter, 'RailwayRev'. It is what it is. If you do a low annual mileage <5K say, the cost differential is unlikely to be significant. If you do >20K it is probable that it will be.

I have no experience of the 2.0 engine, but understand that it is no more economical than the 2.3 in day to day running on account of the greater work that it has to do.

I did run a '91 (H) 940GLE 2.3 Saloon as a business car for 58,509 miles over which it returned 29.0111 MPG. In contrast, my '87 740GLE 2.3 Estate (not a 940, I know, but close enough) did 27.3148 MPG over 62746 miles. Both cars were automatics, so manuals might have done a little better, but I think these figures are realistic.

For business purposes, the boot of the 940 offered me greater security, and the car was slightly quieter and more refined to drive over long distances, while the estate scored for it's load carrying abilities .

It is always difficult to give advice in these situations. I think, on balance and given that you do not specifically need an estate, mine would be to stick with the 'devil that you know'!

Regards, John.

I quite agree with the idea of 'the devil you know'. It is the attraction of a lower mileage, more modern car that is tempting me and I am sure I can fill an estate.

I was only slightly concerned regarding the mileage as I know there are occasions when the difference between similar engines and set ups can mean a huge difference in MPG (Landrover V8 on carbs vs fuel injection for example)