My 760 turbo wagon has always looked a little lower in the rear compared to the front since we got it (used). When the Nivomats went bad a few years ago, I put in used 740 springs and regular shocks.

My impression is that the rear is the right height but the nose is too high, as though the car got B280 V-6 front springs at some point in its life. I measured at the wheel arches and also at the jacking points and there's a definite difference. There are not many Volvos around here so I'm asking other owners to measure their cars so I can figure out which end is really the wrong height.

So... if you have a 740/940 sedan or wagon, 760 wagon or 92-94 960 wagon, you can help. On level ground, measure from the underside of each wheel arch to the centre of the wheel (the L in Volvo on the hub cap). If there's a difference from left to right side just average the readings so you have one rear height measurement, and one front...and then post 'em here. Measurements to the ground will vary with tire size and inflation so I'm going by two points on the car for consistency.

Thanks, guys.

I had a similar problem on an 87 740 sedan with the softer sedan springs. I solved it by installing spring spacers from Volvo to get the height a little higher than the front. I used two on each side. It looks great now. I tried wagon springs first but found them a little to stiff. Get the spacers and you will be all set with out spending much money.

940 GL, 1992, sedan, normally aspirated. 15 and 1/4 inches from front wheel center to front wing lower edge above the wheel...did you mean that?
--
i prefer non-german cars

It sounds like you measured it the same way I did but you don't say whether that 15-1/4" reading was at the front wheels, rear, or it was the same all around.

I've posted about this numerous times. It's been my experience that the front springs on 900/700 cars actually EXPAND with age. So when they wear out, they are bouncy and soft, but the ride height is actually too high. I know this seems counter intuitive. I'm not an expert on metalurgy (sp) but a member who is suggested that if the springs were formed cold, then as they relax, they will tend to return to their original form. This means they will expand as I mentioned earlier.

Replace the front springs, and you'll likely be all set.

Jeff Pierce
--
'93 945 Turbo (201K miles), '93 945 (140K miles/I maintain for a family member), '93 945 Turbo (sold w 145K miles), '92 Mercedes 190E (174K miles), '85 Jeep CJ-7 w/ Fisher plow (225K miles), '53 Willys Overland w/ Fisher plow (sold to a loving home)

I've got to admit that this is the first time I've seen mention of that quirk. Nothing in the FAQs either. I suppose I should have pursued this answer BEFORE replacing struts 2 months ago.

I see by your signoff that you have two 945s. Would ya take the measurements on both and please write back?

These measurements are with a carptener's tape measure. With the lip of the tape stuck between the plastic liner in the wheel well. I only have one 940 at my home now, the other is at the home of the family member/owner.
I replaced my shocks/struts & springs at all 4 corners a little over a year ago.

Front:
left-14.5 / right-14.75

Rear:
left-14.25 / right-14.5

So 14.5 seems to be the correct height. The difference in the RL & FR is likely due to fuel in the tank.

FYI: On the two '93 945Ts that I have owned, the front of the car dropped to the correct height when removed the worn out OEM springs, and installed new Scan Tech replacements from FCP Groton.

Jeff Pierce

--
'93 945 Turbo (201K miles), '93 945 (140K miles/I maintain for a family member), '93 945 Turbo (sold w 145K miles), '92 Mercedes 190E (174K miles), '85 Jeep CJ-7 w/ Fisher plow (225K miles), '53 Willys Overland w/ Fisher plow (sold to a loving home)

Hmmm... 14.5" is almost exactly what I have at the rear (I measured 14-5/8" at the same points you did). The 1/4" L to R difference seems very normal.

These measurements only strengthen my original suspiscion that it was a front end problem all along - and the reason I kept ignoring the "experts" that keep saying it needs new rear springs to fix it. I rides at 16-3/8" at the front wheels.

I'm admittedly kind of a fanatic about suspensions.

While it stinks that you'll have to do the exact same front end labor twice, (you already had the springs off to replace the struts), in the long run it's a good thing. (BTW: I did the same thing several years ago on my first 945T) You will now have first-hand experience with the difference that the new front springs will make... and you'll know definatively that the springs were the problem. Start looking at other 700/900 series cars on the road & parked on the street. You'll notice immediately that the vast majority of them are riding too high in the front.

FYI: even though I have the Load Carrying springs on the back of my 945T, I'm still not happy with its stance while fully loaded (luggage/gear for a family vacation). So I'm investigating coil spring "air-bag" adjustable inserts from Air Lift. I had them on a Toyota Van in the early 90s and they worked splendidly, and they're only $70 for a set. I'll keep you posted.

Jeff Pierce

--
'93 945 Turbo (201K miles), '93 945 (140K miles/I maintain for a family member), '93 945 Turbo (sold w 145K miles), '92 Mercedes 190E (174K miles), '85 Jeep CJ-7 w/ Fisher plow (225K miles), '53 Willys Overland w/ Fisher plow (sold to a loving home)

I think the key is "used 740 springs". There are three things more important than your engine in a car. Your brakes, tires and suspension.

Find a local coil spring shop in your area and for very little money, you can get them checked. Then when they are fixed buy some KYB shocks.
--
1965 Mustang A block 4 speed, 1969 Cougar Eliminator, 1990 Super-Charged Thunderbird and a car (740) that my wife can drive!!!

You totally missed the point of my posting. The rear has been visibly lower than the front since we bought the car years ago. It is approximately the same with the normal rate 740 springs + std shocks as it was with the low rate + Nivomat shocks. It truly looks like the front is too high more than looking like the rear is too low. The measurement of other cars will tell the story... the whole reason for my note.

I have a hunch that the wrong front springs were installed at some point. Not too crazy a thought since the same car previous model year was V6 powered.

As far as condition... the car has always had 4 matched tires (new set currently has only 2000 miles on them) and three month old Boge Turbo shocks.