First off, Ford had nothing whatsoever to do with the 850. Volvo was still an independent company at the time, though there was that pesky partnership with the French. If I recall correctly, there was talk of a merger with Saab at some point when GM was divesting itself of some European holdings (Lotus) Later came talks with Fiat, which in my opinion would have been a far better way to go, but Ford got them in the end, in, I believe, 1998. The first generation S40 was a Mitsubishi, spawned from a joint venture with the Dutch branch of the company (formerly known as DAF) The current one (and V50) is a Mazda 3, more or less. The ugly bulbous new type V70 and XC70 must have had some Ford input on the styling. Technical expertise went in the other direction---the Ford 500 is based on the V70. The original S80 was well along in the design stage before the Ford takeover, so is mostly Volvo. (By the way, it was not the first-ever transverse FWD straight six, as Volvo advertised. That dubious honor belongs to a Wolseley badged variant of the BMC Maxi, circa 1972) The only Volvo with heavy Ford influence is the XC90---why else would such a monstrosity have been created. Ford did not buy Volvo to "allow" them to make "new" cars, they did so because they hoped to make money off the deal, to gain technology more advanced than anything they had developed themselves (particularly in the area of safety equipment) and perhaps to improve their corporate image.

Remember that the 760 came out in 1982. At the time, it was far more advanced, particularly in safety and crashworthiness, than anything the Japanese had to offer. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, consider the Cressida that was introduced in 83 or 84---the one that looked very much like a 760. Yes, the Toyota had a much better engine (a close copy, with two additional cylinders, of the magnificent Fiat 124 DOHC unit) but the structure was thin tin, no different from a Corolla of the time. It wouldn't be for another 8 or 10 years that the Japanese would begin to produce cars that were truly impressive, and even then they lagged behind the best of the Europeans in terms of crashworthiness and structural strength.

Early 700 series cars did suffer from quality control problems. The inferior wiring insulation was common to all Volvos from 80 to 87. The brittle interior plastic was probably related to this in some way. The headliner was a bad design from day one. The yellow/tan interior plastic did fade to an unattractive purplish color, and red faded to several different colors depending on the type of material. Blue was more stable, and, oddly, black seems to be the most durable of all. In this period, no manufacturer was immune to uneven fading of interiors--Japanese cars were just as bad. The early type door panels were prone to warping, and peeling vinyl at the top edge. The revised type, introduced in 89, is much better. All exhaust systems (except stainless) rot out quickly if the car is used mostly for short trips. Volvo is no worse that anyone else. Same with rattling catalytic converters. Heat shields rattle. Period. Whoever made them. Taillights become brittle and opaque. That can be blamed on inferior French plastic. The Hella lights on older Volvos don't have this problem. Of the five 740s I've owned, all of them were completely dry inside. One of the most watertight cars I've ever had anything to do with. (no I don't live in a desert) Never seen a center console exploded into brittle shards either, though I've come across a few with the lid broken off by being bent over backwards. As for bad grounds, VW is, and always has been, the king of that particular malady. The only ones I've run into have been minor, causing the bulb warning light to come on at inappropriate times. The main reliability issue I've run into has been the Radio Interference Suppression Relay. Carry a spare. A spare fuel pump relay is not a bad idea either.

The B230F is a fine engine. The early ones (to mid 88) had a smaller diameter crankshaft and are only good for 250K miles or so before bearings are needed. Later ones will go on indefinitely. I know of an 89 745 that has 350K miles on it and the engine has never been apart. Still has the original valve cover gasket. Yes, it clatters a bit, but the noise is harmless, unlike many Toyota engines---when they start making top end noise (usually at 150-180K) they need a cam and rocker arms, and often a full valve job as well. 22Rs are notorious for this. V6s are almost as bad. They usually also require a timing chain and gear set when this happens. I'll take an easy-to-change belt that does no harm when it breaks any day. The same 89 is still on its original alternator, starter, air flow meter and fuel pump.

I will agree with you completely on the subject of brakes. The 740 brakes were a big step backwards. What were they thinking? Probably trying to save on production costs. (this is why most Japanese cars have sliding calipers) The Girlings are especially lame. They use a tiny inadequate spring to tension the pads. This spring rusts or breaks off very quickly, and they rattle like crazy. It makes you think the whole front end is about to fall off. The Bendixes aren't as bad, but the pedal feels mushy in comparison to the 4 piston fixed calipers on a 140 or 240.

240s and 740s go for about the same around here, with the exception that really nice 240s will bring a premium price. If 740s go for less, its probably due to the headliner, which makes the whole car look ratty if it is drooping. (or missing entirely)

I've seen old Corollas and first and second generation Camrys with huge miles on them (400K+) but they looked and felt it---rusty, nasty, loose and rattly. And would you really want to have a major high speed crash in one, even if it had no rust whatsoever??

As for the LS400 as an alternative, it falls short on many counts. No stick shifts. More importantly, no wagons. Styling is just as blah as the Volvo, though perhaps a bit less dated. Far from simple and straightforward to work on. Parts are probably expensive, and may be difficult to get. For some reason, the Japanese makers love to change components frequently, sometimes two or three times within a model year. Thirsty---I can't imagine they get more than about 16-18 MPG in regular mixed driving. My 745 does 29-32. Yes, I've checked the odometer for accuracy, and it has been quite consistent for several thousand miles. I have an M46 transmission and 3.31 rear axle, and drive it fairly gently. I know that this is unusually good, but most people get about 25-26 with automatics. Turbos don't do as well. Finally, price. LS 400s are still $3-5K around here, even for 93s, even with huge miles. You can easily find a super nice 940 with 150K or less for half that.

I don't know that I agree with the idea that production costs doomed the 240. All of the tooling would have been paid off many years before the end came. Materials costs don't vary much, and as it is quite a simple car, labor costs shouldn't have been that high, especially compared to other European cars. (Asian labor costs are significantly less, due to other economic factors) It would not have been particularly difficult to have added OBD II either. Over its life span, the 240 had many different types of fuel system. Developing yet another would have hardly been a bank-breaking exercise. As for CAFE requirements, after they were gutted by the Reagan administration, the 240 was always well above them, particularly the later stick shift cars with 3.31 rear axles. It seems more likely to me that the tooling was starting to wear out, and replacing it would not have been cost effective, as there weren't/aren't enough people out there willing to pay the price for a brand new 25 year old car.

That said, the 240 series can probably be considered the definitive Volvo (though I'm sure plenty of 122 and PV owners will disagree) and it would have been great to have seen it go on forever. It had quite a run---19 years, or 27 years if you consider it to be an evolution of the 140. If you take the latter view, few other cars have lasted longer---only the VW Beetle, the Mini, the 2CV and the Porsche 911. The Saab 93/96, the Morris Minor and the Citroen Traction Avant all were produced for over 20 years, and so beat the 240 considered alone. The Model T equals it, with a 19 year run. I am not including cars made in developing countries under license, such as the Hindustan Oxford (1956 Morris Oxford) still in production in India, or the Lada (1966 Fiat 124) made in Russia until the late 90s.