Volvo Community Forum. The Forums of the Volvo Owners Club

Forum Rules Volvo Owners Club About VOC Volvo Gallery Links Volvo History Volvo Press
Go Back   Volvo Owners Club Forum > "Technical Topics" > 700/900 Series General

Notices

700/900 Series General Forum for the Volvo 740, 760, 780, 940, 960 & S/V90 cars

Information
  • VOC Members: There is no login facility using your VOC membership number or the details from page 3 of the club magazine. You need to register in the normal way
  • AOL Customers: Make sure you check the 'Remember me' check box otherwise the AOL system may log you out during the session. This is a known issue with AOL.
  • AOL, Yahoo and Plus.net users. Forum owners such as us are finding that AOL, Yahoo and Plus.net are blocking a lot of email generated from forums. This may mean your registration activation and other emails will not get to you, or they may appear in your spam mailbox

Thread Informations

940 saloon vs. estate.

Views : 858

Replies : 14

Users Viewing This Thread :  

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Feb 19th, 2018, 17:57   #1
RailwayRev
Junior Member
 

Last Online: Jul 28th, 2021 20:12
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Caerfyrddin
Default 940 saloon vs. estate.

Hello, I am a long time Volvo owner, I have had a 440,480,v70 tdi (wonderful old bus),V40 (1.6, not Volvo's finest hour) and I am currently running a 1994 940 2lt SE saloon.

The option to acquire a 940 2.3 turbo estate has come up. I have been told that the seller wants rid as it is far too thirsty for them. Now my 2l saloon is hardly frugal. Can those with more experience advise me on the possible pitfalls of changing from one to the other?

My driving is mainly local, within 10 miles. My car has just passed it's MOT and the Estate will come with a fresh one.

I love the way the saloon drives and on the occasion that it does get on some decent roads it does get a bit of a thrashing. If I change will I be disappointed?

I don't really need an estate but the mileage is only just over 100k, the saloon is on 170k.
RailwayRev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19th, 2018, 18:24   #2
deeman940
Master Member
 

Last Online: Oct 30th, 2023 02:51
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: watford
Default

I have never driven a 940 saloon, but I have a 2.3 turbo estate which I throw around all over the place with no worries. I doubt if there will be much difference in the economy, especially with the low mileage you do...What year is the turbo? low mileage examples are getting harder to find now...
deeman940 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19th, 2018, 18:57   #3
RailwayRev
Junior Member
 

Last Online: Jul 28th, 2021 20:12
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Caerfyrddin
Default

1997 for the estate and 1994 for the saloon.
The estate is rather poverty spec with wind up windows in the front. None of my previous Volvos have had this.
RailwayRev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19th, 2018, 19:06   #4
Forrest
VOC Member
 

Last Online: Today 12:06
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gloucester
Default

If your SE saloon is a turbo and the 2.3 estate is low-pressure turbo you’ll find the estate seems less powerful despite its 300cc advantage. This is my experience owning both 1994 2.0 and 1997 2.3 estates.

Unusually high fuel consumption could be down to a number of factors but in my experience changing the lambda sensor often helps.

The estate can of course be more practical, but you lose the ability to hide things in the boot.
Forrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19th, 2018, 22:24   #5
Delta66
Senior Member
 

Last Online: Feb 23rd, 2020 20:46
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Erskine
Default

The 2.3 LPT engine can properly keep up in modern day traffic and mine, with a 5 mile commute returns around 25mpg.

I prefer the extra capacity of the estate, a load cover can hide what is in the boot.

I also think the estate is better looking.
Delta66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20th, 2018, 11:50   #6
deeman940
Master Member
 

Last Online: Oct 30th, 2023 02:51
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: watford
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RailwayRev View Post
1997 for the estate and 1994 for the saloon.
The estate is rather poverty spec with wind up windows in the front. None of my previous Volvos have had this.
I would go for the estate all day long, the 1997 has the better block and M90 gearbox. wind up windows= light weight and less to go wrong!!
deeman940 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20th, 2018, 14:41   #7
RailwayRev
Junior Member
 

Last Online: Jul 28th, 2021 20:12
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Caerfyrddin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deeman940 View Post
I would go for the estate all day long, the 1997 has the better block and M90 gearbox. wind up windows= light weight and less to go wrong!!
When you say better block, what do you mean. I thought all the 2.3l had the B230 engine?

Is the M90 box the one fitted to the V90's?

I agree with what you say about wind up windows, as someone who spent 15 years running a garage before moving on to pastures new, the less electronic guff to fail the better.

There used to be an expression going about that went "if it's got t**s or wheels it's going to be a problem" I would like to add "wires in it" to the statement.

It has sat in its current location for about two years, being MOT'd once year and then parked up. It was last in regular use three years ago but was laid up due to the fuel consumption issue. It did spend at least 5 years off the road between 2009 and 2014, hence the low mileage. But has been kept as a spare car (just in case!?!)

I hope to get it for under £400 and I am certain that my saloon would make this when I decide to move it on. However, I treated her to a valet and polish today and she looks so smart, I really fancy keeping her....
RailwayRev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20th, 2018, 16:06   #8
deeman940
Master Member
 

Last Online: Oct 30th, 2023 02:51
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: watford
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RailwayRev View Post
When you say better block, what do you mean. I thought all the 2.3l had the B230 engine?

Is the M90 box the one fitted to the V90's?

I agree with what you say about wind up windows, as someone who spent 15 years running a garage before moving on to pastures new, the less electronic guff to fail the better.

There used to be an expression going about that went "if it's got t**s or wheels it's going to be a problem" I would like to add "wires in it" to the statement.

It has sat in its current location for about two years, being MOT'd once year and then parked up. It was last in regular use three years ago but was laid up due to the fuel consumption issue. It did spend at least 5 years off the road between 2009 and 2014, hence the low mileage. But has been kept as a spare car (just in case!?!)

I hope to get it for under £400 and I am certain that my saloon would make this when I decide to move it on. However, I treated her to a valet and polish today and she looks so smart, I really fancy keeping her....
96/97 cars have an improved design with better oil squirters in the block and also the strongest conrods..only really relevant if you are going to tune it...
deeman940 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20th, 2018, 16:07   #9
john.wigley
VOC Member since 1986
 
john.wigley's Avatar
 

Last Online: Today 13:22
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Leicestershire
Default

Whether the fuel consumption 'issue' is a concern or not is a personal matter, 'RailwayRev'. It is what it is. If you do a low annual mileage <5K say, the cost differential is unlikely to be significant. If you do >20K it is probable that it will be.

I have no experience of the 2.0 engine, but understand that it is no more economical than the 2.3 in day to day running on account of the greater work that it has to do.

I did run a '91 (H) 940GLE 2.3 Saloon as a business car for 58,509 miles over which it returned 29.0111 MPG. In contrast, my '87 740GLE 2.3 Estate (not a 940, I know, but close enough) did 27.3148 MPG over 62746 miles. Both cars were automatics, so manuals might have done a little better, but I think these figures are realistic.

For business purposes, the boot of the 940 offered me greater security, and the car was slightly quieter and more refined to drive over long distances, while the estate scored for it's load carrying abilities .

It is always difficult to give advice in these situations. I think, on balance and given that you do not specifically need an estate, mine would be to stick with the 'devil that you know'!

Regards, John.
__________________
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana .....
john.wigley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20th, 2018, 16:27   #10
RailwayRev
Junior Member
 

Last Online: Jul 28th, 2021 20:12
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Caerfyrddin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john.wigley View Post
Whether the fuel consumption 'issue' is a concern or not is a personal matter, 'RailwayRev'. It is what it is. If you do a low annual mileage <5K say, the cost differential is unlikely to be significant. If you do >20K it is probable that it will be.

I have no experience of the 2.0 engine, but understand that it is no more economical than the 2.3 in day to day running on account of the greater work that it has to do.

I did run a '91 (H) 940GLE 2.3 Saloon as a business car for 58,509 miles over which it returned 29.0111 MPG. In contrast, my '87 740GLE 2.3 Estate (not a 940, I know, but close enough) did 27.3148 MPG over 62746 miles. Both cars were automatics, so manuals might have done a little better, but I think these figures are realistic.

For business purposes, the boot of the 940 offered me greater security, and the car was slightly quieter and more refined to drive over long distances, while the estate scored for it's load carrying abilities .

It is always difficult to give advice in these situations. I think, on balance and given that you do not specifically need an estate, mine would be to stick with the 'devil that you know'!

Regards, John.
I quite agree with the idea of 'the devil you know'. It is the attraction of a lower mileage, more modern car that is tempting me and I am sure I can fill an estate.

I was only slightly concerned regarding the mileage as I know there are occasions when the difference between similar engines and set ups can mean a huge difference in MPG (Landrover V8 on carbs vs fuel injection for example)
RailwayRev is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:04.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.