Advice please
 

Hello all. Some advice please. I'm looking at a 240 estate or a 740. I read the 240 is the better car so ideally that one. I'm going to be using it as a daily driver. I've spotted a 240 with the 2 litre carb engine in good condition but ive also seen a 740 in excellent condition and with the 2.3 injection and the 5 speed gearbox. I'm guessing the latter engine would be better for everyday use or should I not worry about the engine too much. Just wondering what is the best bet.
Thankyou in advance
Joe

People debate at length between the 240 and the 740. I have a 240 and I have owned a 740. Both are good cars.

The 240 has higher ground clearance and a slightly longer load bay. The 740 is lower with consequent different handling and has split rear seats. There are of course other differences.

Why not test drive and see what you prefer?

Between the engines. The 2 litre is a good engine. Well mine works well. The 2.3 is more highly regarded.

The carburetor engines were always good. Depending which carburetter, there can be difficulties getting them running well nowadays. There are people in the forum who can give good advice about that, not me.

Carburetor engines are older. The car is less likely to have good more modern rust protection. But with K jet injection you will avoid electronics if that is your preference. (If you look at a K jet engine, there is a huge flat shelf for a mug of coffee. I think that is the inlet manifold!)

The injection engines are broadly divided between K jet mechanical injection which is generally regarded as seriously reliable, and the LH electronic injection which is also tried and tested.

I hope that basic sort of answer might help a little.

Beware rust on any older car....



P.S. A lot of 240 and 740 are used well as daily drivers. If there is a problem, diagnosis can take time and sometimes parts can take time. And, do you have a local garage with expertise in "modern classic" cars of this nature?
Suitability as a daily driver is also debated a little....

.

I would not get a 2 litre with that fixed jet carb it is very poor , the air inlet bellows is too small , volvo did put a 360 top on the carb to improve things for people who complained but not a good carb/engine combination .

740 is better in all ways really ,its 10 years ahead of the 240 yet keeping the best bits of it .

I fully agree.

I have had both over the years. A 1986 740 GLE with B230K carb engine and a 1989 240 GLT Auto with B230E with mechanical K jet fuel injection.

The 740 is the more modern driver and better rust protection and the B230E engine in 10 years of ownership never gave me any trouble in the 73,000 miles I put on it. Total mileage 235,000 when sold. 240 Was my daily of 8 years.

The 240 is the Volvo people think of but my 1996 940 2.3 LPT, an evolution of the 740 is quieter, more modern and I'd say the better car.

I would go for a 740 2.3 with K jet. B230E. Great engine. Or a late 940 Turbo in CD spec if you like your mod cons.

James

What Clan and James say makes a great deal of sense.

Thanks ever so much for your great advice people. I like both cars but it read on the forum that the 240 was far better built than the 740. I guessed the 2.3 was the better engine but wondered whether I should compromise as it heard the 240 was a better car. 240vs740 thread on here.
Guess I'll have to try them both out and see which I prefer.
Thanks ever so much again. I'll keep you posted what I go for.
Joe

My twopennath is based on experience over the years AND having to carry out repairs economically since being made redundant.
My 2.3 4-speed estate 240 was enthusiast-owned when I bought it, at over 200k miles on the clock. Apart from having to rebuild the carb and change that wretched coil pack I did nothing to it in over 6 years - until the clutch went at over 270k miles.
My 2.3 740 auto estate was also enthusiast owned (only recently returned to me now he has a V70), and was a far more comfortable ride over the 240, but plagued with electrical problems. The speedo and fuel gauge have been intermittent and it had a nasty habit of cutting out whilst cruising - alarming when an auto, meaning a quick turnoff, flick to neutral and try the key again, all whilst moving fairly fast! Neither have been resolved by a specialist yet...
Parts availability for 240s is far easier around here than for 740s, and any basic d-i-yer can maintain the 240: mine were just everyday transports so if that matters to you I'd seriously look into such things. Comfort shouldn't come into considering ones everyday transport - economy (or lack of it!) is about the same so look at spares-availability and your local garage being happy working on one over the other.

P

I've only ever had 240s, and that's entirely because I love the shape. I've always thought they were design classics with a lovely sweeping line front to back, especially the estate. By comparison the 740 looks a bit crude and box-like.
But I know opinions differ.

Mine have always been daily drivers, before retiring I did about 30,000 miles a year.
My first was a 2.1 - very reliable after I replaced the carburettor, which are I think known for having a limited life.
I had a 2.3 carburettor with the awful Renix system and the coloured pipes and stuff, which was unreliable until I swapped the carburettor for an early Stromberg and all the ignition stuff for an early distributor with Lumenition. After that it was good, and is still on the road I note.

A 1993 2.0 Torslanda was very reliable. I bought it with over 200,000 miles, and it was running well at about 440,000 miles when it fell foul of the emission regulations. As it also needed welding as well as a new engine I scrapped it.
Then a 1992 2.3, converted by the previous owner to LPG. It was reliable and I did about 100,000 miles in it, but developed a knocking noise I couldn't trace without a major engine strip-down, I suspected possibly wrongly due to the LPG running. The gearbox became noisy. After someone smashed the front wing I sold it cheaply.

I've currently a 1991 2.3, which is the best of the lot. I really appreciate the 2.3 over 2.0 - it is more powerful, with more torque, which you don't at first notice because the gearing is higher. It only does 2000 rpm at 60 mph.


The 4-speed box feels limiting, and you pretty soon start wanting a 5-speed.
The 5-speed box doesn't last as long and starts to get whiney, so it would be worth doing regular oil changes and keeping it topped up.
Best of all is the 4-speed with overdrive. I needlessly swapped in an overdrive box into the Torslanda when I got the car, just because I love overdrives.

I love 240's and lusted after one for the past 10 years. I don't think the 740 looks anything like as nice. Just my opinion but bonnet line and rear 3/4 view of a 240 are just amazing. Its for that reason I would be prepared to overlook any of the 240s faults......but thats just me. Drive both cars if you can and see how they feel to you.

Again. Really appreciate the advice people. I'm looking at them both on Sunday hopefully. Ultimately I think it will come down to condition and what I like driving the best I suppose. Looks wise I'm with the 240. Thanks again. Luckily enough I've got a Volvo specialist near me so should be all good in that area.
I'll let you know how I get on.
Thanks
Joe