Buying / owning a classic estate

[andij]

Hi everyone 👋

I'm looking to buy a classic estate, (probably mid to late 90's) with a budget of about £2500.

I've been searching in the South and have seen a few online (I'm in Woking, Surrey.)

I have a basic knowledge of maintenance / servicing / upkeep etc. and I'm happy to crawl under the car with a spanner.

My preference is for a dark colour with black leather with a high trim spec. (But not too precious really.)

I'd really like to find a car that has no surprises waiting for me in the first few thousand miles.

If I may, I'd like to share some details related to the cars I find to see if there are any red-flags or things to looks out for.

There is lots of great information in this forum and I've tried to acquire some knowledge online (e.g. Volvo club buyers guide) to help guide my decision but would appreciate input from the experts and enthusiasts here.

There's already some great advice I've found in this thread: https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=327371

[andij]

Next weekend I've arranged to view a 1996 960, and this is the info I have:



Volvo 960 - £2500 - N885 GLU
Red, 1996, 3.0 24v Auto
Lots of service history and book of all receipts and tax discs etc.
Owned since 1998 (he has looked after it with care)
MOT until September 2023
Full leather, all electrics working except the disconnected sunroof as the seal is faulty.
Drivers seat needs is worn on the bolster.
230,035 miles

On the last MOT the advisories are:

• Nearside Front Inner Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement rear bush (5.3.4 (a) (i))
• Offside Front Lower Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement inner rear bush (5.3.4 (a) (i))
• Nearside Rear Inner Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive sill (5.3.6 (a) (i))
• Offside Rear Inner Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive sill (5.3.6 (a) (i))
• Offside of engine bay evidence of brake fluid leakage around distribution valve block but non found at time of testing

I've no other details at the moment, so will find out more when I visit.

I would like to know what to ask and anything specific to check during my viewing and test drive.

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?

[Steve 940]

Hi Andij,

Hello and welcome to the forum, good choice of wheels.

I'm around 14 months or so into life with a '94 940 Wentworth Estate, 2.0 Turbo, and I must say it's been a joy so far.

Always a balance between condition vs cost, so all I'd suggest is to try to avoid anything with body corrosion as for me, mechanical issue can be more easily sorted than rust issues.

There's loads of info on here, and I'm sure some other users with actual experience of the 960 will provide some guidance on ownership experience.

Just from what I have picked up on using the forum over the last year or so is that a 2.3 Turbo is the generally viewed as being 'best' if at all possible, my 2.0 Turbo is definitely more of a leisurely cruiser.

A great thread to look at on cars for sale is

https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showt...89#post2858989

Also check the sale section on the model pages, along with usual online sources.

Good luck with your quest.

Cheers
Steve

[SalvadorP]

Are you set on a 960 or also looking at 940s?
Are you looking for especific characteristics? Like being an auto/manual?

I'm sure people will guide you well here on the forum. Before I bought my 940 I also looked at 960s. Be careful, depending on how well maintained this car was, 250k miles can be too much for a 960 engine and auto transmission.

[SalvadorP]

As for things to inspect, I would be mindful of the usual stuff, like oil marks on the ground where the car is parked, sludge on the oil cap or whether the cap is "too clean". Do the usual tests (whach RobertDiy on youtube if you want). Check for leaks, I think on the 960, pay special attention to head gasket and rear main seal. Also the 960 as a multilink assembly on the back, which is understandably more problematic than the rear solid axle on the 940/740 series.

The advice I tend to give to other people who are interested in older volvos is always "look for a redblock". Many users on the forum, I'm sure, will vouch for 760 and 960, but from the cars I tested and what I've learned so far, for people who haven't owned older volvos previously or don't know the specific quirks of this other engines/models, the redblock is the safest bet and easiest to work on.
Essentially, not all volvos are made equally. If you want a tank from mid to late 90s, a Turbo Redblock like a B230FK or B230FT with an M90 (manual tranny) is the way to go. Not saying the whiteblock is not a good engine, I heard it is, if taken good care of, but it seems to be definitely more prone to issues than the redblock, which is a cast iron block.

[Laird Scooby]

Check the rear ends of the sills carefully, particularly around the jacking points on that 960 - also check how it sits when you first arrive, should be level. If the back end sags, when you take it for a test drive, do about half a mile (not much more thogh) and stop somewhere level and check it again, should be level by now - if not it likely needs new Nivos on the back. They are expensive and difficult to find.

Also the engine should be very smooth and quiet, if you can hear any slight tapping from the top end and a hint of a misfire with it, some Carlube ATF-U or NAPA MVA ATF added to the engine oil will almost certainly fix it - will improve the hydraulic tappets and piston rings in any case and help revive dodgy oil seals in the engine. About 0.5L normally does the job.

The 960 is better appointed than the 940 but 940s are more plentiful. On a long journey, the 960 should be no less economical than a 940, possibly even better. On short runs (most days a couple of 1 mile ish runs) i get 24-26mpg from my 760 (with a V6 instead of a straight 6) and havae seen 42mpg on a run with ~30mpg on most mid range motorway stuff.
No reason to suspect the 960 would be much different - it's a bigger engine so has the torque there without the need for the turbo to spool up although if memory serves, once the turbo on the redblock is up and running, it produces similar torque to the 6-pots. That means it doesn't need to be urged to get the torque resulting in slightly better economy IMHO.

Bottom line is it's your choice at the end of it all, unless you're really sure about the first one you see then view a few first. Sods law dictates there will always be a better sounding/looking one come along for sale just after you've bought your choice but that's just life - ignore it and make the best of the one you buy!

[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!