240 vs 740

[roystone]

Hello Chaps,

I am new to forum, but have a question to pose - are the engines of 240s and 740s swappable? I have a '88 740 GLE which I run every day and love it so much that I cannot bear to scrap it now it has blown the head (oh the shame) ; I don't have much cash to chuck at it and I have been offered a 240 due to be scrapped as a donor engine. My local engineer chum (with too many years under his belt!) reckons it can be swapped over relative easily…worth it? My 88 is a beaut, 100K, one owner etc etc and it'd be criminal to break - i couldn't sleep at night!

Cruising around the forums gives me conflicting info..(!)

Ideas? Do-able?

cheers, Roy.

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by roystone

Hello Chaps,

I am new to forum, but have a question to pose - are the engines of 240s and 740s swappable? I have a '88 740 GLE which I run every day and love it so much that I cannot bear to scrap it now it has blown the head (oh the shame) ; I don't have much cash to chuck at it and I have been offered a 240 due to be scrapped as a donor engine. My local engineer chum (with too many years under his belt!) reckons it can be swapped over relative easily…worth it? My 88 is a beaut, 100K, one owner etc etc and it'd be criminal to break - i couldn't sleep at night!

Cruising around the forums gives me conflicting info..(!)

Ideas? Do-able?

cheers, Roy.

What do you mean by"blown the head"? If your head gasket has failed then surely replacing that is the best option - you should investigate the underlying cause of the gasket failure though.

Apropos whether"swappable", would depend on what red block is in the 240, the 740GLE has fuel injection, what engine does the 240 have - B200, B230, carb, injection..?

Anything is possible but there's more work involved in an engine swap than a gasket change.

Jon.

[57RKL]

Latest year on year UK survival rates 2015 Q2 to 2016 Q2 as follows

Volvo 240: 2159 licenced 89.9% survival rate
Volvo 740: 1922. " 83.2% "
Volvo 940: 6212. " 87.2% "
Volvo 850: 5275. " 81.1% "

[Paul240480]

My first was a Tors. Loved it to bits. Towed with it never appreciated what I had really.
On the back of it I got a 340GL as a second car.
Chopped the Tors for a T5 850 (great car). But missed the Tors!
Eventually sold the T5 in 2003 and bought an 89' 240 GL. Still got it.
Nuff said.

[jetronic63]

I recently picked up 760 turbo - so badly neglected that it was heading for the banger circuit, so I thought that even if the car turned out to need too much work, the engine would go in my 240. Now I've fixed a lot of the neglect, it's turning into quite a nice car - smoother and quieter than my 240, it's a good high speed cruiser. The plastic dash trim is crumbly in places but relatively cheap to swap for good used or new from Volvo. The headlining is also dropping, so seems to be a common fault, but again, not too difficult to sort out. 7s are fully galvanised I believe and it is impressively corrosion free both on the body and underneath - from the ones I've looked at, they do seem to rot less than 240s. So, I don't love it as much as my 240, but it's a good car i think and a bit of a giggle with the turbo engine. Not sure whcih I would class as better - they are different and come with their own set of challenges 😀

[Clifford Pope]

The 240 was derided as brick-shaped originally, but it is now appreciated as a very elegant car from its period. In my view it has always been a design classic.
The shouldered doors, and the subtle sweep of the bonnet line along the doors and continued with a slight down-turn to the rear is beautiful.
The most brilliant feature is the way both the saloon and the estate look absolutely right, even though they share the same profile back to the rear door edge. There have been very few estates that even begin to look elegant in their own right - mostly they look what they are - just add-on extensions that spoil the looks of a nice car.

The 740 estate by comparison does, in my view, really look like a brick, and the saloon like a converted chest freezer.

[canis]

I've never owned either car. But when the 740 appeared I thought it was stunningly beautiful and I've wanted one ever since. I especially liked the saloon model with that sharp, near vertical, rear screen. The old 240 seemed very old fashioned by that time.

But it is characteristically volvo, and I think I would gladly have one now if one came my way, in preferance to the modern styling of cars. What puts me off cars these days is their windscreens have a very shallow rake, and the 'A' pillars are annoying at roundabouts and stuff, trying to look around them. The acres of black plastic dashboard in front of me. The tight squeeze trying to sit in them. There's a lot to like about older cars over new ones.

[Angie]

Originally Posted by Clifford Pope

The 240 was derided as brick-shaped originally, but it is now appreciated as a very elegant car from its period. In my view it has always been a design classic.
The shouldered doors, and the subtle sweep of the bonnet line along the doors and continued with a slight down-turn to the rear is beautiful.
The most brilliant feature is the way both the saloon and the estate look absolutely right, even though they share the same profile back to the rear door edge. There have been very few estates that even begin to look elegant in their own right - mostly they look what they are - just add-on extensions that spoil the looks of a nice car.

The 740 estate by comparison does, in my view, really look like a brick, and the saloon like a converted chest freezer.

Much is of course in the eye of the beholder but for me, and I have a background in architecture and design, the 200 shape is just a little better proportioned, especially from the side. If anything I prefer the saloon, which has a real air of quality about it, the 700, and 900 too, saloons don't to my eye feel quite 'comfortable'. I particularly like the sweep of the 200 arches, which seem to give the car a sense of movement even when stationary, and whilst the shape itself is in a way dated, being based on a much earlier design, it also has a non-fashionable timeless classic appearance. Getting into aesthetics here though is bound to be something of a minefield! I have no direct experience of the performance merits or otherwise of 700s or 900s. It seems to me though that all the RWD Volvos are superb cars in so many ways.

Originally Posted by canis

I've never owned either car. But when the 740 appeared I thought it was stunningly beautiful and I've wanted one ever since. I especially liked the saloon model with that sharp, near vertical, rear screen. The old 240 seemed very old fashioned by that time.

But it is characteristically volvo, and I think I would gladly have one now if one came my way, in preferance to the modern styling of cars. What puts me off cars these days is their windscreens have a very shallow rake, and the 'A' pillars are annoying at roundabouts and stuff, trying to look around them. The acres of black plastic dashboard in front of me. The tight squeeze trying to sit in them. There's a lot to like about older cars over new ones.

I agree about those raked windscreens, and the ever smaller side and rear windows too, which I imagine make parking sensors almost essential. And yes, all that plastic, yuk! My Tors is just so easy to drive, as well as being so comfortable that I'm sometimes reluctant to get out after a journey!

[Prufrock]

This is all very tribal (why I don't visit the forum often) and people will have their own justification for preferring either - and just because you prefer one or the other doesn't mean that one is objectively better. I prefer the 700 simply because it is more modern and drives a whole lot better than the 1960s designed 200 - I have a 245 by the way.

Many will also prefer the 200 simply because there is a consensus (fashion) of opinion about the car - this is lacking in the 700. I also prefer the 700 because most of you do not !

Someone has to protect the endangered species.

Jon.

[George Holmer]

The 700 series was designed as an update of the 200 series to save Volvo which was close to bankruptcy in the 70's. It is pretty much the same car, just more "modern". The 200 series had a very loyal following but did not survive the 700 series unless you count the 900 series as a different car to the 700 series which it really is not, IMHO.

The 700 series saved Volvo, quite literally. Without it, Volvo would have gone under as they were struggling but could not afford to develop a really new car at that point. That came with the 800 series which could arguably be said to be the first "new" Volvo from which the current range follows.

The 700 series was also designed as an estate first which at that time was very controversial and the idea of making a luxury estate (the 760) or a fast estate (the 740 Turbo) was very new and Volvo spent a fortune on a marketing campaign in the US. Personally, I love all Volvos although I clearly prefer some over others and for me, an 80's 740 is the ultimate Volvo as that is what my dad had when I was a kid in Sweden. Mind you, pretty much everyone else did too.