Buying / owning a classic estate

[SalvadorP]

In regards to high milleage. I tried several 850s and 960 whith less than 200.000km, they all have major issues.
I had to decide between a 98 940 lpt with 18k km saloon and a 97 940lpt wagon with akmost 500k. The first was a 5 ownwer, with some shaddyness on the carfax report. The wagon was a 1 owner who presented me the 20 yeas of volvo maintenance always at the same center, with sheets of maintenance and a receipt for a major engine overal (all gaskets, reseufqce head, etc) valuing almost 4k, just 2 years ago.
Ebetyone said: Buy the saloon! Tree times less mileage... For what I know, that car is already on or past it's 7th owner.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by andij

This I gather is related to the 960 (and later models 850s etc.) and their rear suspension configuration and self levelling technology. So it'd be great to use this technique to check if it's working properly and how to identify if it's failing.

Almost all 7/9xx models use Nivos, some will have been either converted to normal rear suspension (different springs and dampers but a standard set-up so no need to advise insurers) or left the factory with it.

The test described should be done on any model you look at.

[griston64]

Just joined this thread so not really read in depth. I would say that 960 is well overpriced. Especially with 200k + on it

I have a lovely 740 that I'm selling but being a 2.0 N/A Auto it's very slow.

It's no comparison to my 940 Turbo manual as you would expect !

[volvo always]

On the 940 and 740 look for rust in these areas.

Outriggers/jacking points.
Sill ends.
Battery tray.
Wings on some seem to rot.
Wheel wells.

240.

Front bulkhead, behind insulation.
Bottom corner of windscreen.
Rear wheel arches.
Under rear bumper.
Wheel wells in boot.
Jacking points.
Rear suspension mountings. Ideally jack car up and look at chassis to shock/spring mounting area.

All are at the age where they will need repairs. Just find one in the best condition. Take a good torch and give it a good going over for rust.

I have a 1996 940 LPT B230FK, 135BHP, auto estate. Had it about 5 years now and no major issues. I like the Auto. First auto was a 240 GLT auto estate. All bought for less than £350 back then, not now!

James.

[baggy798]

Originally Posted by andij

I'm also wondering what it'll be like to run a 3L 24v as it's not as economical as say, a 2.3L Turbo. I'll likely be using it for short(5m), medium(40m), and long(100m) journeys. So, is there a big difference in fuel economy?

Expect about 3-5 mpg less than a 2.0/2.3 redblock turbo in each category, no matter how gentle you drive.

I usually get about 24 mpg with a lot of short 6 mile round trips. A 40 mile journey probably around 29-32 mpg.

Achieved a record 41 mpg this year (and three lots of 40 mpg) on several 200 mile round trip motorway journeys, which is bloody amazing for a redblock turbo. Slight caveat though: this was at a slow 50 mph gps on cruise control but I really wanted to see the maximum it could get and I had time to burn, M90L2 manual, tyres at 38/38, and it was the height of summer.

One time in the same journey I got stuck in traffic, so for 40 of of those 200 miles I was going at 80-90 odd (max of 97 according to digihud), that dropped it to 34 mpg.

A 960 is heavier, an extra 2 cylinders and 0.7 litres that constantly needs feeding, and being an auto really saps everything too. Now I think modern autos can get the same as manuals all being equal, but not these ones. These 960s were available when 4 star petrol was under 60p a litre and were aimed at people like William Doyle!

"William Doyle? Good ol' Bill Doyle. You know, that sounds like a hell of a good name to me! Probably connected with the Boston Doyles. Old money, blue chip stock. I think it's all beginning to come back to me now.."

If your heart is set on a 960 then take a good look at the IRS/rear suspension area for the corrosion listed. The IRS is more complex, has a composite leaf spring setup which is NLA, although it handles and rides good apparently.

£2500 is a bit high for a 940/960 with that many miles, unless it's in great condition and doesn't smell like an elderly male yak has taken a leak in both the door pockets!

[baggy798]

No way is a 760 getting even close to 42 mpg! Heavier, auto, more inefficient LH2.2, that V6.


I'll have to look up the figures but that sounds like close to 10 more than they were rated officially! Even the 760 turbo would struggle to get over 30.

At least 940s were rated for something like 40.8 at a constant 56 mph. I'll post the 1995 fuel comp chart later showing the 940/960/850 saloon and estate with LPT/HPT/D24 figures.

[SalvadorP]

I've never achieved nothing like 41mpg. Minimum I got was low 9s l/100km. Maybe even high 8s. 41mpg is like 7.9l. I wish.

Ddoes anyone on the forum have lpg converted cars?

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by SalvadorP

I've never achieved nothing like 41mpg. Minimum I got was low 9s l/100km. Maybe even high 8s. 41mpg is like 7.9l. I wish.

Ddoes anyone on the forum have lpg converted cars?

I have an LPG converted car but it's not a Volvo, the fuel computer quoted 31mpg on a run and when i worked it out, it was nearer 34mpg on LPG - the fuel computer works it out on petrol.

I've since confirmed this with other fill-ups on it that the actual mpg on LPG is ~10% more than the fuel computer. Normally LPG would be higher consumption because it has a lower calorific value than petrol but it has a higher octane rating (~105) so once the engine is in its power band, the ignition is advanced until the engine pinks and then retarded slightly to make use of the higher octane rating.

Planning onconverting the 760 to LPG soon but can't find my old XP laptop to tune it! When i do, hopefully it will be done fairly quickly. Not expecting great mpg out of the gas on the 760 (18-30mpg expected) but at ~80-100p/L it's a lot cheaper than 180p/L for E5 98 octane unleaded!

[SalvadorP]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

I have an LPG converted car but it's not a Volvo, the fuel computer quoted 31mpg on a run and when i worked it out, it was nearer 34mpg on LPG - the fuel computer works it out on petrol.

I've since confirmed this with other fill-ups on it that the actual mpg on LPG is ~10% more than the fuel computer. Normally LPG would be higher consumption because it has a lower calorific value than petrol but it has a higher octane rating (~105) so once the engine is in its power band, the ignition is advanced until the engine pinks and then retarded slightly to make use of the higher octane rating.

Planning onconverting the 760 to LPG soon but can't find my old XP laptop to tune it! When i do, hopefully it will be done fairly quickly. Not expecting great mpg out of the gas on the 760 (18-30mpg expected) but at ~80-100p/L it's a lot cheaper than 180p/L for E5 98 octane unleaded!

I still don't knwo if I'm gonna be able to bring my wagon back to portugal because the tax charge to register it is insane, but there is a law that if you are out of the country and the car is yours, etc... a law to which I can apply, in theory, which would reduce the cost to 600€ or so.

I haven't yet investigated the subject because of the issue explained above and not knowing if I'm gonna keep my baby.
But a few questions come to mind:
Is it better, the same or worse on the engine? Specifically on a very high mileage engine like mine.
Does it lose much power?
In your case, do you do it yourself? Doesn't it have to be done by a certified person?

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by SalvadorP

I still don't knwo if I'm gonna be able to bring my wagon back to portugal because the tax charge to register it is insane, but there is a law that if you are out of the country and the car is yours, etc... a law to which I can apply, in theory, which would reduce the cost to 600€ or so.

I haven't yet investigated the subject because of the issue explained above and not knowing if I'm gonna keep my baby.
But a few questions come to mind:
Is it better, the same or worse on the engine? Specifically on a very high mileage engine like mine.
Does it lose much power?
In your case, do you do it yourself? Doesn't it have to be done by a certified person?

Usually LPG is better on the engine because it burns more cleanly. With the redblcok being a relatively low revving unit, power loss will be less because it will have longer to burn (which it needs) but in all honesty, i've not noticed any power loss on any of the LPG cars i've had and so far, mostly had similar or better mpg figures on LPG than on petrol. That said, none of those cars used the Bosch engine management system so i would say it's down to the engine management operating differently to Bosch and taking advantage of the higher octane rating of LPG to give better economy.

The Jeep i had was already done (but very badly, i had to fix several things on it) as is my Jag (seems to work fine), the 827 Coupe i did myself and plan on doing the 760 myself as well. If you're competent then theres no reason (in the UK anyway, not sure about Portugal, Spain or any other part of Europe) why you shouldn't be able to install and configure the system. For the most part, i used secondhand bits which still worked fine, yes they can and do wear out but easier on the wallet to replace that single part on a fitted system than buy a complete new system to start with.