940 vs V70 as a 'cheap' big estate ?

[smallzoo]

I have a 99 Subaru outback as I wanted a cheap big estate as a workhorse for my big dog but its quite expensive to run

Ideally I don't want to spend more than £750 as I will only do around 3000 miles

Anyway I was originally looking at a V70 petrol but I have seen on quite a few forums big praises for the 940 2.3, simple, cheap to maintain and go on for ever

Is that a fair summary or am I looking through rose tinted glasses ?

How does it compare to the V70

Thanks

[loki_the_glt]

940s are rear-wheel drive and have lots of room around the obvious service bits (well, most of them as turbo oil fiters were put in the most difficult place imaginable, while the dizzy cap is best done with the head off IMO).

Timing belt replacement should take less than an hour, plugs are easy to get to, there are no driveshafts to fail an MoT, and red-block engines are well-nigh indestructible.

Load-carrying is impressive: we fitted an IKEA double-bed size mattress in the back of the Valdez and, because they're RWD, you get better traction in snow when the back's loaded: a V70 will end up with its nose , and thus its driving wheels, in the air with the same load on board as a 940

In conclusion - go for a 940 and drive the car you really can have fun with.

[smallzoo]

Thanks for that

How does it handle in the snow ? Ok or is like skates ?

Best engine ?

Cheers

[CharlesStevenson]

IMO there's no one 'best engine', for example:

2.0i/2.3i non-turbo have more underbonnet space = plus
but have less power = minus
but have less stress so possibly longer lasting = plus

You could then consider 2.0i/2.3i turbos and swap all the plusses and minuses around.

Also, the mpg for the turbos can work out better than non-turbos, since they don't have to work so hard ... unless you drive it harder and then it drops ... !

For me at the moment we've 2 940 SE estates, one's a 2.3i turbo and the others' a 2.3i non-turbo, the turbos on 103k and the non-turbos on 250k with FSH and 1 owner from new, after 6 months as a demo.

Both are manual, however, all the previous ones we've owned were auto and they were ok in the snow, not brilliant, but that could be tyre choice perhaps.

Best for you to take a look at a few, they sort of grow on you after a while.

[rogerthechorister]

Both are classics please do not insult them.

[smallzoo]

Couple if quick questions..

How does the 960 compare to the 940. ?

How many miles on average do the the turbos last ?

Thanks

[Diesel-do-nicely]

960 hmm, great untill they go wrong, if the auto box goes then all your money is down the pan, and all of them will have head gaskit failure sooner or later, usually about 150k max.
The best bet for a basic car is a non turbo 2.0 or 2.3 you will get a very good one for the money, everything is over engineered relative to the power output of these ones, as its mostly the same bits on the "sporty" ones with nearly double the power. And they last .
Service records are a must, register with BCA car auctions , its free, sometimes trade ins are going through and if you are willing to take your buying seriously and put some effort into your searching a bargain can be had.
I scooped a 85k mile 2.0 highlander in bca edinburgh for 325 .plus fees.
sold it to a friend for 100 commision on top , he still has it 2 years later and has had NO faults or hassles other than what he has used up in normal driving, 2 tyres and annual services/ brake pads ect.

[smallzoo]

Ok.. so basically go for a 940.. I want something simple and that hopefully goes on for a long time..

I like a bit of oomph so I think I will go for a 2.3 .. just the decision of Turbo vs Non Turbo ?

...AND.. manual vs auto.

My outback is auto..really easy to drive but I miss the manual control.

Again I guess it depends on how reliable they are compared to each other

Thanks so far for the help..

[TonyS9]

I've looked at a few 850s/V70s and my opinion is they last nowhere near as long as a 940. There is always an engine warning light on, something wrong with the drive or electrics. They are engineered for refinement not longevity. A 940 is designed to last 20 years, and they do.

I don't agree with the Turbo MPG argument. Doesn't really make much sense, but I havn't been able to do a proper comparison. a 10 years more advanced 940 might be more econmoical than a older 740 NA.

High mechanical compression will beat turbo low compression at low rpm. Compression ratio is directly proportional to thermal efficiency, this is why diesels are so economical, and we all do less mpg since the leaded days.

No real disadvantage with the turbo, change the oil regularily and use decent oil. Worst case a rebuild every 130K miles.

[CharlesStevenson]

I echo TonyS9's comments, buy on condition, turbo or not 2.0 or 2.3, it's condition and previous useage that'll be your best guide.

And since these cars are sooooo long lasting many upgrades are possible both body and underbonnet