Goodbye 940 :(

[360beast]

Well with a new business venture coming up I can't afford to miss out on (but involves more travelling and to begin with less money) my sensible hat has been put on and I will be selling my 940 and my new 360 project! Something I never thought I would do as I love the 940. I genuinely thought it would be the last car I bought until we were all forced in to self driving electric blobs for our struggling electrical grid. Also so we can have great big holes in the planet for the lithium mines but alas no it will just cost too much to run and I don't want it to sit doing nothing.

I have enjoyed owning my 940 so much, it has taught me that automatic gearboxes can be nice to drive and if you use them properly actually quite good for spirited driving.

It has covered around 18k miles in the last year virtually problem free and in great comfort, especially now the cold has hit the heated seats are lovely haha.

So my 940 will be for sale soon so if you are interested in a saloon 940 (boot spoiler not fitted but will come with it) then keep an eye out on the sales section.

A sad day indeed.

[Laird Scooby]

Sorry to hear that Luke! Is there no way you can keep the 940 (and 360) even if you put them both off the road and use some alternative (allegedly) economical transport for work?

I say "allegedly economical", many moons back when i only had my Rover, i had a plan to take it off the road for a while to do some front suspension refresh work and a few other things.

Back then i could still drive a manual so i bought the first cheap small car i could find for the budget i had in mind. It was a Renault Clio 1.2 - don't laugh!

Well, not too much anyway!

Bottom line was it took 3 times as much to insure it and almost as much fuel as the Rover, was very uncomfortable, slow and something broke on it on a pretty much daily basis.

In fairness i maybe shouldn't have expected perfect reliability from it but things like the wipers would suddenly blow a fuse for no apparent reason (like they weren't even on) didn't inspire confidence!
Sure i could get semi-respectable fuel economy figures if i drove it like Miss Daisy but i could barely get out at my destination because of spending too much time in the uncomfortable seats! Even then, the economy wasn't that different to the Rover.

Overall it cost me more to run it than the Rover so in the end, i bought a few bits to do the front suspension and fitted them as and when, making notes of what else needed doing and ordering those bits to fit the next time i could get underneath.

The only upside of the Clio was i sold it for a small profit (~27%) but it's often cheaper to keep what you have and just budget for the extra fuel costs.

Whichever way you play it, good luck with what you're planning!

[john.wigley]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Sorry to hear that Luke! Is there no way you can keep the 940 (and 360) even if you put them both off the road and use some alternative (allegedly) economical transport for work?

... but it's often cheaper to keep what you have and just budget for the extra fuel costs.

Whichever way you play it, good luck with what you're planning!

Agree 100%, 'L.S.' Many years of running larger Volvos (140s, 240s, 740s, a 940 and now a V70) as well as a 360 and a 1.7 340, have taught me that there is much more to economical motoring than the price of fuel.

At the other end of the scale, I once owned a new Mini 1000 which returned 47 - 52 MPG, while my 18 month old Fiat 500, with only half the capacity, could only manage 45 - 47, when driven under similar conditions.

Fuel economy has always been over-rated to my way of thinking, more so today than ever before!

Regards, John.

[Ian21401]

So how will you be doing the travelling?
I concur with Dave and John. Fuel costs are only one part of the equation. You have a reliable comfortable car.
Why not just stop the 360 project and keep the 940?

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Agree 100%, 'L.S.' Many years of running larger Volvos (140s, 240s, 740s, a 940 and now a V70) as well as a 360 and a 1.7 340, have taught me that there is much more to economical motoring than the price of fuel.

At the other end of the scale, I once owned a new Mini 1000 which returned 47 - 52 MPG, while my 18 month old Fiat 500, with only half the capacity, could only manage 45 - 47, when driven under similar conditions.

Fuel economy has always been over-rated to my way of thinking, more so today than ever before!

Regards, John.

Funny you should mention Mini 1000s in the same breath as 140s etc John! My first auto was a 1973 144 DL auto with the B20 engine. I regularly got 32mpg from it, a friend had a Mini 850 and he struggled to get 30mpg out of it. Now factor in that he had to replace all 4 tyres at least twice in a 6 month period plus various other things that failed due to wear and tear (mainly because Minis weren't designed for doing the mileage he and i were doing although my weekly mileage was higher than his) and he spent more running that Mini in 6 months than i did for everything except insurance on my Volvo. I include my VEL/RFL/road tax in my costs, his was taxed for a year when he got it.

Somewhere i have (or at least think i still have it) a copy of Motor magazine from April 1985 where they did an article entitled "False Economy?" or something very similar.

In short, they traveled from one destination to another in a diesel car, a petrol "economy car", a Jag XJ-S i believe and also via public transport.

The cheapest was in fact the petrol car, due to the higher cost of diesel. However, to get the best economy from it, they had to limit their speed. The quickest (predictably!) was the XJ-S but it also used more fuel than the economy petrol car.

I can't remember all the facts and figures now but the conclusive line of the article was something along the lines of "Would you sit in your car in traffic for £1.50/hr on your day off?"
Although the petrol car was the cheapest, the saving was fairly small against the time the Jag saved and worked out at about £1.50/hr the driver would be saving. Granted it didn't take into account insurance costs but i'm sure you see the point they were making - cheapest isn't always best!

[360beast]

Unfortunately no it is purely down to the cost of fuel.

I will be driving my 2003 Fabia VRS again, I laid it up about 2 years ago when I bought the 940. 1.9 TDI with stacks of service history, I have replaced every single bush on it and fitted updated suspension components including bilstein b4 dampers, it has a stage 1 remap so has 170hp and 392nm, it gets 60mpg and before I stopped using it I fitted bigger Octavia VRS brakes to the front (new everything and overhauled calipers).

Sadly my parents are selling their house so I won't be able to store the 940 there (currently where the Fabia is) and I have no time whatsoever to do anything to the project 360.

I will however still have my fully recomissioned Volvo 360 saloon and the B230ET to rebuild and fit.

I need money and as much as I love the 940 it just doesn't give me the same driving sense as my 360 which is like a Jack Russell asking for more.

[Laird Scooby]

You'll regret it next year when diesel hits £3+++/L Luke!

Joking aside, we all know diesel is going to be hit on the price and no doubt the tax as well, also i heard a horror story on saturday about an Octavia diesel EGR valve and exhaust system - came to £3.5k by the time it was sorted! Granted that was VAG Dealer prices but involved the cat, DPF, EGR valve and a few other bits.

You might be better off selling the Skoda while some people are still buying diesels and using the money to fuel the 940 or even fit an LPG conversion. At 53p/L it's a lot cheaper than diesel already! Not sure what you get to the gallon from your 940 but at say 30mpg on fuel that only costs 53p/L that's like getting 60mpg at £1.06/L or about 75mpg at £1.34/L - food for thought maybe?

[SteveP]

Shame you're having to move the 940 on, but sounds like it's for the greater good. If you do put it up for sale, someone will get a nice 940 by the look of it!

If you're doing a lot of miles it's the right choice, them Fabia's are ridiculously good on fuel for the performance!

[loki_the_glt]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Funny you should mention Mini 1000s in the same breath as 140s etc John! My first auto was a 1973 144 DL auto with the B20 engine. I regularly got 32mpg from it, a friend had a Mini 850 and he struggled to get 30mpg out of it. Now factor in that he had to replace all 4 tyres at least twice in a 6 month period plus various other things that failed due to wear and tear (mainly because Minis weren't designed for doing the mileage he and i were doing although my weekly mileage was higher than his) and he spent more running that Mini in 6 months than i did for everything except insurance on my Volvo. I include my VEL/RFL/road tax in my costs, his was taxed for a year when he got it.

Somewhere i have (or at least think i still have it) a copy of Motor magazine from April 1985 where they did an article entitled "False Economy?" or something very similar.

In short, they traveled from one destination to another in a diesel car, a petrol "economy car", a Jag XJ-S i believe and also via public transport.

The cheapest was in fact the petrol car, due to the higher cost of diesel. However, to get the best economy from it, they had to limit their speed. The quickest (predictably!) was the XJ-S but it also used more fuel than the economy petrol car.

I can't remember all the facts and figures now but the conclusive line of the article was something along the lines of "Would you sit in your car in traffic for £1.50/hr on your day off?"
Although the petrol car was the cheapest, the saving was fairly small against the time the Jag saved and worked out at about £1.50/hr the driver would be saving. Granted it didn't take into account insurance costs but i'm sure you see the point they were making - cheapest isn't always best!

Fuel consumption isn't always best with the smallest engined version of a car. My father had two Escort MkIIs - a 1.3 then a 1.6 and the 1.6 was markedly superior in fuel consumption because he didn't have to thrash it to make progress the way he had to with the 1.3. My 2.3litre FE Victor averaged 28mpg (on cross-plies!) and we went from Glasgow to Luton one night at motorway speeds returning almost 40mpg.

[360beast]

Haha diesel would have to go to about £2.50 a litre and then it would only be the same as running the 940 haha.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I should have fitted the LPG kit from my breaker instead of selling it but alas we live and learn.

My Fabia has an EGR which I have already cleaned thoroughly and the PD130 engines didn't have DPF systems, the whole exhaust only has one back box as standard. I can buy a complete Miltek exhaust for the fabia for a few hundred.

Plus I know everything is done on the Fabia so it's just a case of jump in and drive, I also don't care if it gets battered where as I will with the 940.

Yes Steve someone really will be getting a good solid 940, at least I can put some of the money towards the 360 as I have owned it for 7 years and only driven in on trade plates so my goal is to get it on the road next year.