|
200 Series General Forum for the Volvo 240 and 260 cars |
Information |
|
240 vs 740Views : 22590 Replies : 113Users Viewing This Thread : |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Dec 18th, 2013, 21:05 | #11 | |
Premier Member
Last Online: Today 00:06
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Midlands.
|
Quote:
This is me. I would even have a go at installing a new engine or gearbox if it went as I know it. My Sister bought a 2003 Volvo S40 1.9d S For £750 and realised after the clutch was shot. £300 for a new clutch, then the ignition barrel collapsed another £150. Final thing failing to start, then going along and blew a load of black smoke out the exhaust and running on and finally the engine seizing. Scrapped If I was you I would stick with what you know. Snap on a drivers side rear hockey stick! James |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to volvo always For This Useful Post: |
Dec 19th, 2013, 08:25 | #12 | |
I've Been Banned
Last Online: Aug 10th, 2018 09:22
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Lincolnshire Wolds & West Sussex Coast
|
Quote:
With regard to plastics: I have three 740s - two 745s and one 744 (2 x 1986 cars, 1 x 1987 car). All of their plastics are in good condition and unbroken; no rattles, squeaks or groans, and only a very minor dash crack in one car. No oil leaks and no rust. I'm biased but not blind to any faults the car might have; faults that result from the abuse or lack of care of previous owners are NOT car faults they're owner faults! I also have just bought a 1989, one owner from new 245DL, a car that's lived a sheltered life and this car's biggest fault are the rusty rear arches - my 700s have no rust in the arches whatsoever and they're older than the 245. Saggy headling vs rusty wheelarches? That's a no-brainer. I do like 200s though (pics of mine to come), and I don't like facelift 700s or 900s. Jon. |
|
Dec 19th, 2013, 09:13 | #13 |
Trader Volvo in my veins
Last Online: Today 00:08
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Anglesey
|
Bear in mind that the engines are the same so any engine related problems are down to either a un serviced engine or bad luck. The only engine difference worth noting is the 240 has a side mounted dizzy and the HT parts are about half the price of 740/940 ones. Early 740's did have the same side mounted dizzy and it is not a major job to convert back to the side mounted dizzy.
|
Dec 19th, 2013, 10:57 | #14 |
VOC Member
Last Online: May 1st, 2024 15:16
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: telford
|
I think I have been through the range of 2s 3s 7s and 900s the 240DL estate rotted away sold for bits the early 740 estate had a silly carb fault I changed the carb for a webber and that fixed it had 2 years without any further problems. I had no problems with elecrrics on any of my 700s and the plastic bits were all fine no rattles or squeeks. I now have a 945 Torslanda without all the gizmos ie man windows no air con all less to go wrong and I love it If you are looking at a low miler expect to pay a lot more for it and get a good history on it what ever you choose.
__________________
1998 945 Torslanda estate named Wendy wood dash,Half leather. rear spoiler electric front windows, wind deflectors electric mirrors and egg crate grill all fitted by me. One life live it Volvo style |
Dec 19th, 2013, 13:04 | #15 |
Premier Member
Last Online: Oct 28th, 2023 12:30
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dereham
|
The 200 is a classic sixties body shell. Which means it is good for visibility, useful for carrying stuff, and still looks different enough to not be a grey euro blob. Besides, they are fun to drive. And safe.
The 700/900 was an early eighties notchback styled car that is well made, reliable and a bit bland. At that time, Volvo wanted to sell on safety alone, not performance or "fun". Now they look different too. If the MPG of a 240 is causing bother, i'd try LPG rather than that VW timebomb diesel. A 200f should do 30mpg, which is not bad.A neighbours old v70 averages 24! |
The Following User Says Thank You to heckflosse For This Useful Post: |
Dec 19th, 2013, 14:54 | #16 |
Member
Last Online: Apr 5th, 2018 20:56
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: north dorset
|
as an interloper from the 700/900 board id just like to say that the 700`s are very good cars. my 740 turbo had one very carefull lady owner(no really) before me and I got it last year with only 86thou on the clock. its mint. and I fricking love it. kinda sleek (if you squint) and less than £100 has seen me keep of type r`s on the dual carriage ways. cheap to buy, classed as a classic so costs me £120 to insure and with a few mods and decent rubber it handles well. the 240`s just look too bulky. all the problems with any car can mostely be put down to insufficient maintenance. mine doesn't suffer from any of the problems mentioned.
sorry, you can all suck through your teeth now and call me a young "whipper snapper" lol. but best of all it looks like a Volvo. 2/7 or 9 they are instantly recognisable. |
The Following User Says Thank You to dreadnought For This Useful Post: |
Dec 19th, 2013, 16:24 | #17 |
Master Member
Last Online: Dec 19th, 2022 18:47
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Crawley
|
asking the question in the 240 section is obviously inviting biased views, just as asking it in the 740 section would. I bought a 740 for £150 with 129,000 miles and fsh, aside from a very small amount of surface rust at the back its in brilliant condition for a car from 1988, its well equipped and the b230e is great. It had the obligatory saggy headliner (most 25 year old cars would have a saggy headlining) and dodgy fuel gauge which a lot of the time can be fixed by re-soldering the connection on the instrument cluster. It doesn't rattle and the plastics are all good, obviously helps mine hasn't seen tons of wear with such low mileage and has been looked after. Personally i prefer the 740 design to the 240, i like 240s but really never understood the premium they command over a 740 and i wouldn't say the 240 outlived the 740 as a 940 shares most of its dna with a 740. If your 240 is good enough to keep living id agree it would be wise to keep her going especially as it sounds like your fond of it and they are good car, maybe you should have a look at a 740 and see what you think never know you might like it id say you can get more for your money considering the rising price of 240s of late.
__________________
Amateur having a go. Volvo 855 TDI 228,000M (sold) Volvo V70 2.5D 218,000m (sold) Volvo 745 GLE 129,000M (Tankenstein) Volvo 940 SE HPT 115,000M |
The Following User Says Thank You to 855 tdi For This Useful Post: |
Dec 19th, 2013, 16:43 | #18 | |
I've Been Banned
Last Online: Aug 10th, 2018 09:22
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Lincolnshire Wolds & West Sussex Coast
|
Quote:
I've disagreed before about the DNA, I've written about this in the club magazine...the 900 has less Swedish DNA than the 700 simply because it was not designed by Jan Wilsgaard. And I disagree about the 700 being a bland design, when it was launched it was Volvo's most audacious design and sold very well. Jon. Last edited by Prufrock; Dec 19th, 2013 at 17:42. Reason: typo |
|
Dec 20th, 2013, 22:25 | #19 |
Senior Member
Last Online: Oct 9th, 2022 04:41
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Currumbin, Queensland
|
I think that the brittle interior plastics issue may not be a 240 vs 740 one: the different colours of plastic and seat fabrics wear very differently. Here in Australia, the beige Volvo plastics fall apart with UV exposure. The blue seems to wear well. I don't know why this is the case. I used to think that the plastics that Volvo used were pretty cheap and nasty compared with those in higher end German cars. But after looking at some late 80s e-series Mercs, I changed my mind: Mercedes dashboards hold up very poorly, and the wood inlay that looked great when new cracks then falls out.
__________________
Present: 1990 240GL saloon, 1992 240 estate Past: 1988 240GL; 1971 144DL; 1972 145DL |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DW42 For This Useful Post: |
Dec 22nd, 2013, 15:54 | #20 |
Premier Member
Last Online: Oct 26th, 2023 20:42
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Thurrock
|
I still think it comes down to, which version one prefers. Each have their respective virtues in use.
The longer load bay and of course the side impact bars are serious points. Good signs of maintenance are yes very important whatever car one buys. Even without documented history, one can usually spot a maintained car compared to a tarted up one quite quickly. I'd rather buy a car maintained by a diligent independent, in preference to a Volvo dealership only following a check list. Yes, another debate. And it's always interesting after test driving to see how one feels getting back in to one' existing car. If the existing car feels happier than the test driven car ...... QED. |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stephen Edwin For This Useful Post: |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|