240 General: New (to me) 1980 Volvo 244

[john.wigley]

I think the main difference mechanically between the OHV and OHC units Alan, was the introduction of an alloy cross-flow head with a belt driven overhead cam. As 'L.S.' said in an earlier post, a more efficient modern engine.

While the belt is in a sense a weakness in that it needs to be changed at regular intervals, the earlier car was not without it's problems. The Achilles heel of the earlier motor was that the cam was driven by a fibre gear which was prone to failure - with not dissimilar results to a belt failing on a 'cammy' motor. A steel replacement was available at the time, but was much noisier than the fibre item. I once paid £10 for a scrap motor just for the gear when it failed on my 145!

While Loki has it spot on with the 2 vs 1 series cars, it must also be remembered that at the time Volvo was a relatively small player on the world stage. They had little spare to invest in R & D, and as a result new models were evolutionary rather than revolutionary in mature. This can still be seen in the 7 and 9 series cars well into the '90s, only really coming to an end when Ford bought the company in 2000'

What this means to you Alan, is that your 1980 car is seen by many as personifying the breed. It is the archetypal Volvo and none the worse for that! It built heavily on the success and reputation of the 1 - series cars, and the Amazon before that, without the complications of later models. Through this thread, I've watched you breathe new life into the Royal Barge, making it a reliable, robust motor-car that you could happily and confidently use every day - just as Mr. Volvo intended and thousands of owners appreciated back in the day. Long may you continue to do so!

Regards, John.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

This can still be seen in the 7 and 9 series cars well into the '90s, only really coming to an end when Ford bought the company in 2000'

Ford had been acquiring shares in Volvo from the early 90s John and by 1996, had a 51% or more share in Volvo and in 1999 completed the purchase to use Volvo to form part of the newly made Premier Automotive Group :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Automotive_Group

If you look at the Volvo cars from the early 90s and particularly from 95-96 onwards, you can see evidence of Ford creeping in with a lot more obvious things from 1999 onwards.
This was usually evident in the quality of things and usually not for the better!

Some say the 7xx cars were the last true Volvos, others argue the 9xx were but they had some parts designed/altered elsewhere other than Volvo plants.

For the true essence of Volvo, i would say the 200 series is probably more true to the original Volvo DNA with the 7xx ranges not far behind.

I think Ford diluted the 9xx series from very early in its production run, others will disagree with that but let's not forget Ford killed the 940 in 1995 in the USA - to me that suggests they wanted to remove all traces of the "true" Volvos before launching their PAG - maybe i'm wrong but that's how i see the evidence.

[Stephen Edwin]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

For the true essence of Volvo, i would say the 200 series is probably more true to the original Volvo DNA with the 7xx ranges not far behind.

That is truth from David. Absolute truth.



For the record. My 16v 740 was probably the best car I ever had.
And my 240 is superbulous !!!!!!

.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

I think the main difference mechanically between the OHV and OHC units Alan, was the introduction of an alloy cross-flow head with a belt driven overhead cam. As 'L.S.' said in an earlier post, a more efficient modern engine.

While the belt is in a sense a weakness in that it needs to be changed at regular intervals, the earlier car was not without it's problems. The Achilles heel of the earlier motor was that the cam was driven by a fibre gear which was prone to failure - with not dissimilar results to a belt failing on a 'cammy' motor. A steel replacement was available at the time, but was much noisier than the fibre item. I once paid £10 for a scrap motor just for the gear when it failed on my 145!

While Loki has it spot on with the 2 vs 1 series cars, it must also be remembered that at the time Volvo was a relatively small player on the world stage. They had little spare to invest in R & D, and as a result new models were evolutionary rather than revolutionary in mature. This can still be seen in the 7 and 9 series cars well into the '90s, only really coming to an end when Ford bought the company in 2000'

What this means to you Alan, is that your 1980 car is seen by many as personifying the breed. It is the archetypal Volvo and none the worse for that! It built heavily on the success and reputation of the 1 - series cars, and the Amazon before that, without the complications of later models. Through this thread, I've watched you breathe new life into the Royal Barge, making it a reliable, robust motor-car that you could happily and confidently use every day - just as Mr. Volvo intended and thousands of owners appreciated back in the day. Long may you continue to do so!

Regards, John.

What a kind thing to say John.

You might recall - I bought the Royal Barge mostly for the nostalgia, but it has turned out to be the perfect car for me - in my humble opinion the 1980ish 244 is the zenith of the classic car, and also of the Volvo marque. I really enjoy owning it - both the maintenance/improvement and the driving aspects. I have genuinely enjoyed bringing the old car back from the precipice (it could have gone the other way and ended up at the banger racing circuit on a Thursday evening).

Dan still isn't taken with the Volvo, but that doesn't matter. He knows that when he is old enough to insure it I'll give him my Porsche - and at that stage I'll carry on driving the Royal Barge (at least as my summer car - I may have to own something sensible like a Skoda Superb diesel estate as well).

Many thanks for the information about the development of Volvo OHV/OHC engines - as often happens with this excellent forum that discussion blossomed out of a question about a thermostat :-)

Stay safe,

Alan

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Ford had been acquiring shares in Volvo from the early 90s John and by 1996, had a 51% or more share in Volvo and in 1999 completed the purchase to use Volvo to form part of the newly made Premier Automotive Group :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Automotive_Group

If you look at the Volvo cars from the early 90s and particularly from 95-96 onwards, you can see evidence of Ford creeping in with a lot more obvious things from 1999 onwards.
This was usually evident in the quality of things and usually not for the better!

Some say the 7xx cars were the last true Volvos, others argue the 9xx were but they had some parts designed/altered elsewhere other than Volvo plants.

For the true essence of Volvo, i would say the 200 series is probably more true to the original Volvo DNA with the 7xx ranges not far behind.

I think Ford diluted the 9xx series from very early in its production run, others will disagree with that but let's not forget Ford killed the 940 in 1995 in the USA - to me that suggests they wanted to remove all traces of the "true" Volvos before launching their PAG - maybe i'm wrong but that's how i see the evidence.

I may have mentioned previously that I once owned a Saab 900 convertible - and something similar had happened between Saab and GM at the time it was built (I think it was about a 1996 car). The 900 was about 80% Vauxhall (or Opel if you prefer) with 20% rather poor engineering done on the cheap by a small Swedish firm that could not afford to do it. The result was a quirky car with lots of bodges that never really got sorted out... and then the company went under.

It is a good thing that the Volvo name has survived several owners, and is still a strong brand, but I can think of no compelling reason to buy a new one. Although (as you say) Volvo was not a big player in 1980, it seems to have done most things in house, and made pretty simple cars that shared lots of parts to keep costs down. The legacy (in my humble opinion) is some really interesting but still practical cars from the pre-Ford era.

This has been an interesting discussion that has grown from the acorn of a question about B21 thermostats - such is the strength of this forum :-)

Stay safe,

Alan

[john.wigley]

As an aside, Alan, I share your views on the mid-90s Saab 900 'vert. I had a '99 9-3, essentially a rebadged 900, but with a hydraulic rather than electric hood. It had terrible 'scutle shake'. I swapped it for a much revised 06 car which I still have. It is a much better car than the earlier model and a nice cheap convertible. Having said that, I would much rather have a C70 but could not find one at the time. At least it is Swedish!

Regards, John.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

As an aside, Alan, I share your views on the mid-90s Saab 900 'vert. I had a '99 9-3, essentially a rebadged 900, but with a hydraulic rather than electric hood. It had terrible 'scutle shake'. I swapped it for a much revised 06 car which I still have. It is a much better car than the earlier model and a nice cheap convertible. Having said that, I would much rather have a C70 but could not find one at the time. At least it is Swedish!

Regards, John.

Ha, ha! Yes, the ‘90s Saab 900 was an awful car. My son and I had a Mazda MX5 (mk 1) prior to that, which was lovely (for the price, hundreds, not thousands) - but we got Bob (the dog) and thought we would change it for a 4 seater convertible- what a mistake!

The 900 steered like a boat, shook, rattled and rolled, performance was mediocre because of its weight. It was full of engineering bodges that it looked like they had fitted just to irritate GM. The (electric) hood design was the worst example - that gearbox was never going to last (and didn’t). For some reason Saab had replaced the perfectly good Vauxhall clutch cable with a bizarre self-adjusting arrangement that one needed a left leg like Garth to operate - fortunately it had left most of the Vauxhall bits in so it wasn’t difficult to convert it to a sensible manually adjusted cable with some Vauxhall parts from the scrap yard. Unfortunately there was nothing much I liked about that car, and to make matters worse Bob hated the back seat, so we had to use the Skoda estate with him anyway.

I was pleased to see the back of the Saab when I bought our Porsche (which is a lovely car. With the 900 Saab just spoiled a perfectly adequate Astra, I think in a misguided attempt to prove it was a bit independent of GM, and just wasted a lot of money (and GM’s patience).

Not to worry, the Royal Barge has more than made up for the Saab mistake.

Stay safe,

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

I've only ever had one Saab, a 1986 900i "Combi" 5 door thing. Great for space but the driving position was horrible with a capital F and i swear the pedal box was designed by a deformed Swedish troll that had broken its legs while dancing the Twist and they'd set that way. Had to be a contortionist to drive the thing!

Other than that, comfy enough for shortish journeys not that long journeys were an option as it only did 22mpg at best!

[john.wigley]

The pre-GM 900s - especially the 'vert - are now regarded as classics in their own right, 'L.S.', and change hands for thousands. They were not a bad car, although the 2-series was a better one in my opinion. Coming back to the GM 900, I very much agree with Alan. In addition to the aforementioned scuttle shake, I recall noticeable torque steer and a turbo that was like a light switch - either 'on' or 'off'. The 06 is a much better car; the only issue with mine is that road tax is £500+ pa, but they are cheap!

Regards, John.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

The pre-GM 900s - especially the 'vert - are now regarded as classics in their own right, 'L.S.', and change hands for thousands. They were not a bad car, although the 2-series was a better one in my opinion. Coming back to the GM 900, I very much agree with Alan. In addition to the aforementioned scuttle shake, I recall noticeable torque steer and a turbo that was like a light switch - either 'on' or 'off'. The 06 is a much better car; the only issue with mine is that road tax is £500+ pa, but they are cheap!

Regards, John.

Ah, I’d forgotten about the torque steer!

Mine wasn’t a turbo, but that didn’t really make it any better :-)

You are right about the Saab following though, the older ones do change hands for tidy sums. I’ve noticed quite a few older Volvos for sale at (in my humble opinion) silly prices as well though.

Stay safe.