First time 940 owner

[Oneeyeblind]

Hey everyone. I'll cut Straight to it because I have a few things to cover!
I've recently gotten back into mountain biking and so has my partner. I've currently got a MK2 TT and you aren't putting two bikes inside that if you also intend to drive it.
A van makes the most logical sense, but! I don't want want to drive a van everyday...

Always loved the look of a 940. I suspect I could convince my Mrs that it's suitable.....

Does anybody else ride? Can I get two bikes in the back? (Preferably standing up without the front wheel, I don't want to lay them on top of eachother)

Are 940's now coming of age? Are they still dependable? I love tinkering with project's but I loathe breaking down on my way to work.

Are they crazy thirsty? Saw they average about 25 (hoping to get the 2.3 turbo)

Finally! What do I look out for? What's the best engine to get? What ones to avoid?

Cheers everyone really appreciate any help you can all give!

[360beast]

You would easily get two bikes in whole with the rear seats folded down but they would have to be lay on top of each other. If you took the front wheel off I imagine both would go in stood up, if you measure your bikes without a wheel on then I will measure mine to see if they'll fit.

I've got a 1990 760 turbo (same headlight/grille as the 940 but they don't have the scuttle panel and have concealed wiper arms) that I really need to sort out selling as it is sat doing nothing. It might be of interest to you, here is a thread about it. My mate was going to buy it but he has decided to finish off his mini instead.

https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=319443

7/900 Volvo's are still very reliable if they've been maintained and not abused, looks for decent service history or recent maintenance to show the cambelt, oil, filter etc have been done.

Rust is the worst thing about these as they rot in the battery trays, front/rear jacking points, sills, underfloor area, front wings where the mudflaps bolt to and the rear arches behind the wheel arch liner and along the lip of the rear arches.

I'm running around 200hp in my 940 and I don't drive economically and usually get 23mpg. If I go on a long run then I'll easily get over 30mpg.

Best engine is the 2.3 turbo followed closely by the 2.0 turbo, the N/A in 2.3 form is almost the same power as a 2.3 LPT but a lot less torque, the 2.0 N/A is just dire! I've driven two and would never own one ever! They're so slow it is painful, the manual one I drove was about as fast as my junker 1.2 Clio daily beater and the autotragic was in a league of its own for slugness.

[griston64]

Originally Posted by 360beast

You would easily get two bikes in whole with the rear seats folded down but they would have to be lay on top of each other. If you took the front wheel off I imagine both would go in stood up, if you measure your bikes without a wheel on then I will measure mine to see if they'll fit.

I've got a 1990 760 turbo (same headlight/grille as the 940 but they don't have the scuttle panel and have concealed wiper arms) that I really need to sort out selling as it is sat doing nothing. It might be of interest to you, here is a thread about it. My mate was going to buy it but he has decided to finish off his mini instead.

https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=319443

7/900 Volvo's are still very reliable if they've been maintained and not abused, looks for decent service history or recent maintenance to show the cambelt, oil, filter etc have been done.

Rust is the worst thing about these as they rot in the battery trays, front/rear jacking points, sills, underfloor area, front wings where the mudflaps bolt to and the rear arches behind the wheel arch liner and along the lip of the rear arches.

I'm running around 200hp in my 940 and I don't drive economically and usually get 23mpg. If I go on a long run then I'll easily get over 30mpg.

Best engine is the 2.3 turbo followed closely by the 2.0 turbo, the N/A in 2.3 form is almost the same power as a 2.3 LPT but a lot less torque, the 2.0 N/A is just dire! I've driven two and would never own one ever! They're so slow it is painful, the manual one I drove was about as fast as my junker 1.2 Clio daily beater and the autotragic was in a league of its own for slugness.

I think you might struggle to get them upright even with the front wheel off. I put my road bike in mine but lay it flat. I then just bung a blanket on if I need to put another bike on top. I suppose you could take the seatpost out put once I get mine set right I don't like moving it

[SalvadorP]

First, goinf from a TT to a literal brick is gonna be an interesting change.

Regarding the bike thing, just measure the vertical lenght of the bike without the wheel. If it's less than 30 inches (76cm) it will fit.

But if you are looking for a wagon chances are it comes with the side vars on the roof. Just mount the bikes on top.

As for the cars. There are many posts here to put you up to speed on the 940. But essentially you are looking for a late 90s 940 with a B230FK or a B230FT engine. Or perhaps an early 90s B200FT. If manual, M90 gearbox is best.
Best to avoid sunroof feature.
These cars are incredibly reliable, still, even at high mileage, like mine. If you are in the UK be concerned with rust.
As for common/important issues besides rust, check rear main seal leak, heater matrix leak. Check common stuff like presence of coolant in oil, funcion of AC and other features like heated seats, power windows, power mirros, cruise control, etc. That's all I can think of right now. Check for pre-purchase inspection posts. There are many.

[Forrest]

Also worth considering the 960 estate or V90 Mk1. These are similar to the 940 but have six cylinder 2.5 or 3.0 litre engines. More powerful and refined with more luxurious trim levels but generally regarded as harder and more expensive to maintain with some parts scarcer.

[SalvadorP]

Originally Posted by Forrest

Also worth considering the 960 estate or V90 Mk1. These are similar to the 940 but have six cylinder 2.5 or 3.0 litre engines. More powerful and refined with more luxurious trim levels but generally regarded as harder and more expensive to maintain with some parts scarcer.

Also thirstier no?

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by SalvadorP

Also thirstier no?

Not normally as the bigger engines torque curve is better matched to the mass of the body.
If you drive it like you stole it on mainly short runs then it will obviously drink more, the 3.0 would be the better choice as it is more powerful than the 2.5 so better matched to the weight of the car.

If memory serves, the 2.0 n/asp auto was the thirstiest in the 740 range, no matter what speed you drove it at and see the comments above on the performance (or lack of!) on the 2.0 n/asp auto.

[tofufi]

Originally Posted by 360beast

Best engine is the 2.3 turbo followed closely by the 2.0 turbo, the N/A in 2.3 form is almost the same power as a 2.3 LPT but a lot less torque, the 2.0 N/A is just dire! I've driven two and would never own one ever! They're so slow it is painful, the manual one I drove was about as fast as my junker 1.2 Clio daily beater and the autotragic was in a league of its own for slugness.

*cough* Don't forget the 2.4 6 cylinder turbodiesel!

It's a good engine if you're not in too much of a hurry (but faster than the NA 2.0!) and mostly do long runs...

Mine has averaged more than 45MPG over the last 35000 miles...

[john.wigley]

Originally Posted by tofufi

*cough* Don't forget the 2.4 6 cylinder turbodiesel!

It's a good engine if you're not in too much of a hurry (but faster than the NA 2.0!) and mostly do long runs...

Mine has averaged more than 45MPG over the last 35000 miles...

Fuel consumption is a product of many variables - driving style, load, terrain, ambient temperature, altitude, car condition, etc., etc. - the list goes on ...

An average figure over an extended mileage therefore is likely to be a much better guide than a spot check, or, on a later car, computer generated figure.

Like 'tofufi', I have always kept detailed records of my motoring costs. From that, I can confirm that my 1991 940 GLE Saloon, with a 2.3 N/A motor and automatic transmission, averaged 29.0111 MPG over 58509 miles from August '02 through April '06.

Please take my figures as a guide only - others will almost certainly differ! If nothing else, 'tofufi's experience does serve to illustrate the appreciable difference between Diesel and petrol engined variants of the same car.

Although, more so today with rising costs all around, it is natural to focus on what we spend at the pumps, the price of fuel is not our only motoring expense. It would be interesting to compare overall costs, fixed, repairs, maintenance, as well as fuel, to arrive at an overall figure in pence per mile.

For comparison, over the period and mileage of my ownership, my 940 cost me 17.44 p.p.m. to run, of which fuel amounted to 12.61 pence or 72.30%. The average cost of fuel at the time was 80.48 p.p.l. Nowadays, with a much reduced mileage, my fuel cost on my V70 amounts to 20.29 p.p.m., which represents 39.64% of my total spend at an average cost of £1.291 per litre (over almost seven years. How times change!

Regards, John.

P.S. Depreciation added a further 1.79 p.p.m. to the cost of running my 940, an expense which is not always considered in the total cost of ownership. Today, with increasing values, that could well turn out be a negative figure, thereby reducing, rather than increasing, the cost of ownership. J.

[baggy798]

Originally Posted by tofufi

Mine has averaged more than 45MPG over the last 35000 miles...

Hmm...

Fuel consumption figures (Urban, 56mph, 75mph)
A 740 TD auto was rated at 31.0, 48.7, 34.0.
A 940 TD man was rated at 29.7, 47.9, 33.6.
A 940 TD auto was rated at 28.2, 50.4, 35.8.

Where are these fantasy roads with zero hold ups for 35,000 miles at a consistent lick?