Sometime lurker-first time poster. Visiting from 200 board.
Thinking of replacing my 89-240 w/something a little newer and leaning towards a 850. What are some of the pitfalls/things to look for. After fixing the common problems on my 240,it has been rock solid and dependable, and returning 22-25 m.p.g. Could I expect at least the same?

My last car was a 240 that reached 500k + miles with very very little maintenance beyond oil filters and oil. There were occasional repairs but nothing that exceeded perhaps $150-200 per year in parts. Also, none of the repairs were particularly difficult to perform myself. Did everything except replacing mufflers/exhaust pipes.

My current car is a 95 850 Turbo Wagon. Relative to the 240 it has had tons of repair issues - it is simply not as durable or simple a car as the old 240 (or likely the 740/940). I honestly don't think I'd recommend one of these cars unless you are able to perform common repairs yourself. I've been dealing with a number of typical problems, rear main seal leak, A/C evaporator leak, etc... and know if I were not doing the repairs myself this car would have set me back several thousands in repair bills. Parts alone are not inexpensive. Sort of sad as I've only had the car 6 months and it only had 80k original miles with good service records when I bought it.

As far as performance goes, the 240 was like driving a tractor around, very slow and reliable and simple. The 850 is light years better in handling, acceleration, features, comfort, etc... Even though it has provided me with a lot of grief thus far, I really enjoy the way it scoots around.

I keep hoping I will gain control over all of the repair issues but I haven't seen that light at the end of the tunnel yet.

I would guess buying an 850 would be akin to buying a BMW that is a few years old, nice performance but $$$ spent all the time to keep it up. I've read others experiences that differ but I am speaking from my own experience here.

Forget the 850. Find a good '93 or so 940. Same basic engine and similar drivetrain as the 240 that has served you so well and airbags, SIPS, ABS, etc.

I have both an '88 745t (195,000 miles) and a '95 855t (100,345 miles). Love the 740 and it's a cinch to work on too.

My .02

Erwin

We've only had our 1997 850 wagon for a few months, so I cannot comment on long-term costs. However, the 850 is a significant jump up from the 240s we looked at. Compared to the 240, you get a lot more passenger room (240 was unacceptable to my 36-in legs), much better seats and ergonomics, a significantly safer car (side impact protection and side air bags were standard by 1996 or 97), and 1.5 times the power yet the same gas milage.

However, it is an expensive car compared to say a Camry or Taurus but cheaper than a Jaguar. You get value for that money, but you need to decide whether it is worth it. For the same money as an 850, you will get as many miles out of a newer Taurus or Camry and spend less on repairs. But you don't get as good brakes, as many safety features, or as enjoyable a car to drive. Your choice.

Your best bet in a Volvo, based on my research, is a base model 96 or 97 850, normally aspirated, mechanical cloth seats. It's all the gratuitous junk like turbos and power seats that break and cost you money. After a few years, the leather on these looks so-so (Volvo is not Jaguar) while the cloth still looks great. We have a 5spd, which is rare, and gives more spunk than anyone needs with the 168hp base motor. After 97, Volvo modified enough things in going to the S70/V70 that it took a couple more years to shake out the problems. Take a look at JD Powers or Consumer Reports -- things improve up to 96/97 then fall for 98. Years hurt more than miles. Look at the repair records. There are a lot of wealthy liberals out there now (cf David Brooks recent column on knowledge class vs business class) who can afford meticulous maintainance and who want to upgrade to a fancy new S80/V70. Ours was at the dealer every 5000 miles for whatever it needed, and it shows.

You can get Volvo 940s up to about 1995, but these are really showing their age compared to say a 2000 Taurus for the same price and half the miles. There is a certain cult factor in some markets to the RWD Volvos that drive up the price relative to objectively comparable cars. In Seattle, a 1992 240 w/ 100,000 miles will run you $8000.

-Eric

Eric: good points.

One point of disagreement: the turbo doesn't fall into the category of "gratuitious junk." I've never driven a non-turbo 850, but people on this board say the turbo makes a pretty big difference in performance, and I've never heard of any problems with 850's that are particular to turbo models--only the occassional regret from people that didn't spring for the turbo.

You're right about the leather seats, though. I live in a dry climate, so I spend quite a bit of time conditioning the seats to stem the cracking of the leather.

Nice to hear about the healthy market for 240's in Seattle!

"One point of disagreement: the turbo doesn't fall into the category of "gratuitious junk." I've never driven a non-turbo 850, but people on this board say the turbo makes a pretty big difference in performance"

Certainly 0-60 performance is gratuitous past a certain point, providing thrills at the expense of the safety of others and wasting fuel. Where is that crossover point? Especially in the US, we have an insatiable appetite for ever increasing horsepower. Family sedans now have to have more power to be considered acceptable than a hot-rod Mustang 5.0 had twenty years ago.

I believe the normally aspirated 850 is plenty powerful, but I have 5spd. Those favoring an automatic may find the non-turbo lacking in low-rpm acceleration and the turbo makes up the difference somewhat. The GLT turbo adds only a few horsepower and makes little difference to fuel economy. However, it moves max torque from 4700 rpm to 1800 rpm, which would make a significant difference in "pick up", especially with an automatic. But you can't believe that that difference does not entail costs. If one is questioning the expense of buying and maintaining an 850, then certainly dropping the turbo is a good start.

All that aside, since the original poster is coming from a 240, assuming it is also non-turbo, he'll be getting 1.5 times the power, the same weight, and the same mpg with a non-turbo 850. I doubt anyone could go from a 240 to a non-turbo 850 and complain about lack of power.

-Eric

Turbos do no break on 850s unless, like an idiot, you rev the engine prior to turning off the key so it gets to spin with no oil...

Learn from the negative comments, but take them with a grain of salt. The problems pointed out in the posts below do seem to be recurring problems and are often discussed on this board, but don't get the idea that all of us 850 owners have had to shell out mega bucks to maintain our bricks.

I had a 240 for 13 years and moved to a 97 850 GLT. I loved the 240, but I couldn't be happier about the change to the 850. With the light pressure turbo, it's a world apart from the 240 in terms of performance, and much better in the snow and mountains. Also, the model I got is chock full of bells and whistles that my 240 didn't have.

I spent some money on a new timing belt at 70,000 and had to replace the ABS module (about 450-500 bucks), but otherwise the maintenance has been low for the couple years that I've had it, and I love driving it!

Do a lot of research, get a turbo, and have the car checked out thoroughly by at least one mechanic (I went to two.) The 850 may not last as long as the 240 and may be more expensive to maintain, but the benefits for me have far outweighed the negatives. I will keep and enjoy this car until I can afford one of the new S-40 T-5's.

Good luck!

I had a '88 244, and the taillight caught on fire, and melted the trunk's contents. Was a pretty rock-solid car. It was still driveable, but i was making good money at the time so I just decided to upgrade to a newer Volvo. (I'm a 23 year old college student btw) The 850 is pretty durable as well, engine needs a little more attention (b/c it's interference, so you need to make sure to keep the timing belt in good order). I think the big difference here is that with the 240, your suspension and bushings could be pretty messed up and you wouldn't feel it much. The 850 has an overall "tighter" feel, so if something's amiss in the suspension, you'll feel it right away. Overall they've both been pretty good. I think it's just the 850's character that makes it seem more maintenance-intensive; you're more motivated to maintain it because it's a lot more of a sophisticated car. You should be fine getting a used 850, just don't pay too much and make sure it has service records if it's going to be your daily driver. Avoid '93s - they used different parts and many say they have weaker transmissions. Get yourself a '94+ for cheap, in good shape, with records and you should be fine. The big difference is I could drive the s**t out of the 240, the 850 seems to want to be "babied" more. But lately, I've been treating the 850 pretty hard and it's impressed me. Seems just as durable as the 240 to me, but the main point is the 850 is a MUCH more complex car. More electronics, more engine electronics, just more technology since the days of the 240. If you want Volvo character, the 850 is the choice. Depending on my income when the next car comes around, I'll either pick up a new S60 or a new Saturn Ion 4-door. Saturns and Volvos seem to have the same automobile character that I like. Good luck!
--
'94 854 N/A.

If you must have a Volvo, try the S60 or S40 models. After years of trial and errors (many), Volvo seems to have finally got it right in these vehicles.

The 850 was the first Volvo experiment in front wheel drive and many errors were made in this vehicle. A short list includes:

ac evaporator leaks---$1100.
rear main engine seal replacement $600-800
abs controller failure $500-600 to replace
it eats pads, discs and calipers at a rapid pace-- $300 per wheel

This does not include regular maintenance items.

If you want reliability and low maintenance costs, go for an Accord or Camry. If you are a crazy person like me, get an 850 (I own a 96 with 85k on it)and make very good friends with a Volvo tech who will work after hours on the things you cannot personally fix.

PS: I have owned two 240s in the past and found them to be just as maintenance intense as the 850 Volvo even though Volvo had years to reduce the bugs between 1968 and 1993. Volvo is only had 11 years into the 850-s70-s60 de-bugging process. Perhaps they are learning faster this time around due to more intense competition despite now being owned by Ford.

I have a 96 850T sports suspension with 84K miles and it has been relatively low maint. Bought it new. I average 28mpg which is very good for such a strong engine.

One fluke problem, two burned valves, replaced under warranty--had dealer replace timing belt while they were in there. We suspect Bosh platinum plugs (broken insulator). Put 78K on before replacing front rotors & pads, rears are still original. This is an easy job you can do yourself. I have also:

replaced thermostat (easy)
done my own tuneups (points, rotor, cap, plugs--easy)
flushed tranny (very easy)
Fixed door stop (easy)
do my own oil & filter changes

My INDY,

replaced ball joint (actually aframe)


This is not what I'd call high maintenance. You can't always do as much on the 850 yourself as you could on the 240, but it is a much whippier car. It does not eat brakes unless you make it. I think if you pay attention to maintaining it and sensible driving, it is a great car. Not as maintenance free as some of the rice buckets, but which would you rather have wrapped around you in an accident? Some complain about the stiff suspension. I LIKE IT!

Strongly recommend you look at the Turbo, much better response. I live in the mountains and have a friend who has a non-turbo 850. No comparison. If you like Volvos, this is a great classic.

No. I love driving my T5 but it's been very maintenance-intensive.

-Punx