Perhaps this is an opportunity for flames but here goes:

The wife drove in a '01 S40 last week and hinted about test driving one and talking to the dealer (gulp). What are the relative merits for this car and its 4 cyl. engine? Versus, that is, keeping a 10 year-old 240DL with 115,000miles (that's paid for!). Are the newer S40s better made than the good 'ol 240s? What about the engine? Is it basically the same as my B230F? Tranny?

Paul

Yeah, we'll keep what we have now. This, after seeing there'd be $400 car payments, etc. And especially after listening to all the good comments on this forum. It's just that sometimes it feels kind of, I don't know, anti-social to drive what we drive (a 90 240DL and an 81 Mercedes 240D). In terms of sheer frugality, I think we are on the pinnacle to be driving a brick and an old diesel Benz. Sometimes, I think we should just drive a Dodge Caravan and a Honda Civic like everbody else. But then, I read the Brickboard or my diesel Benz list and am reconvinced of the sheer genius of these cars. (Sorry about the Benz content but if it ever dies I'd replace it with a 940.)

Paul

Paul wrote:

> It's just that sometimes it feels kind of, I don't know, anti-social to

> drive what we drive

The average motorist on the road can't tell how old a 240 is - they "all look the same". Key difference will lie in the paintjob ... a '79 (Blossom I was still original) that still shines will look newer to 'em than a fading '86(2nd owner's choice to $149.99 it).

-- Kane ... that was from personal experience.

Good choice Paul, what is the web site for diesel Benz. I got one of those too, thanks.

Hey Paul,,The S40 is too small for me, so here's what I would do with all that money...Take a vacation,look for a 85 240 GLTurbo, restore it and then keep it forever..Good Luck

Some people need to drive new cars. You know who you are, just go ahead and get the S40.

But if you want a classic driving feel that only a solid, RWD sedan can give you, and you want to save big bucks on maintenance and depreciation, you have a real jewel of a car there.

115K is NOTHING for that car! I've got 240K on my '83, and I'm just now getting ready to replace the ORIGINAL clutch. Yeah, you have to replace some items as the car ages (bushings, shocks/struts, filters, gaskets and seals) but when you add it all up it is still nowhere near the cost of a new car (which will no doubt drop some very big bills in your lap after the warranty runs out.) Not that the S40 is a bad car - it's just that modern machines are far more complicated, and, although more reliable, far more expensive to fix when things do go wrong.

You can keep your 240 running another ten years with some glue, screws, sandpaper and a couple of rubber bands . See what Volvo is making then, and maybe make the trade-up.

If you want a little newer, quieter, more refined car, try a 940. Same mechanicals as the 240 in a bit bigger, more comfortable car. It worked for my wife :)

I had the fortune of driving one of those S40's last 4th of July. Took her to the beach, picked up hunnies (something my 240 never did). I filled her up .. and man she does NOT like to drink! Cost: $22,000

Sound System was pretty good. That Skid Control crap was sweeeet. It gave me confidence in the FWD that Volvo produced. The Turbo was excellent for a 1.9 L and cylinder. Handling on the other hand could've used some work (remember this isnt the 4500 lb. 240). Cost: $2000

Sunroof...niiiiceee. Cost: $900

The S40 is basically the 240 redesigned for the 21st century.

You cant mess with the original. She has everything the 240 has, plus stronger body, plus better seating, better handling (IMHO) and damn well you're the least likely suspect to win in a drag race across the Brooklyn Bridge. (but she always finds the finish line first)

I'd take my 240 with my mods any day of the week. Considering that she has seen so many things with me. She is the start and end of all my party stories. And she only gets more beautiful with age, as i only continue to learn more about her. Cost: PRICELESS

And that's my story

Way to go Moe ! who said young kids ,opps! adults don't know what what's goin on..Thanks !!

These are two completely different cars. The 240 is the quintessential volvo: boxy, roomy, longlasting, simple. The S/V40 series is one of the new breed of Volvos: front wheel drive, geared more toward refinement than lasting 25 years, sacrificing some of that "everything and the kitchen sink" cargo capacity...

In terms of driving comfort, the S/V40 is probably the winner (depending on your tastes). It drives like a more modern car than the 240, which is after all essentially a 30 year old design based on a 40 year old design. The 240 feels like a tank, the S/V40 feels like your average bland box.

In terms of technology, given regular maintenance you'll probably be driving that 240 long after the S/V40 has had to be resigned to the scrapyard due to failure of some electronics black box. S/V40 are a lot more complicated to do your own work on, too, due to being more compactly built and being front wheel drive (which means more complicated technology with worse access to it). The engine is of the same modular family also found in the 60, 70 and 80 series.

Economically, that 240 has been written off by now. Driving it won't incur much depreciation, and you have no more (expensive) financing on it. Even if you have to spend a grand a year in maintenance, you'll still come out way ahead over $400/month car payments. And that $20K S/V40 will be a $18K S/V40 the moment you drove it off the dealer lot, and a $15K S/V40 in a year or so.

Safety wise, the 240 is a tank. The S/V40 has the benefit of more years of engineering, but is a lighter constructed car, and like a lot of modern cars relies more on high explosives mounted around the occupants, ie. airbags, than on lots of solid swedish steel like the older cars. It's up to you which you prefer. Depending on what you're used to handling of the S/V40 may be a tad more docile, being a front wheel drive car it has less of a tendency to put its tail out. Depending on equipment level you might gain stuff like ABS.

Hmm, that still doesn't clearly point one way or the other, does it? Oh well, I guess if you (or your wife) is actively unhappy or lusting after "something new", why not. It's only money, and life's too short to spend hating or disliking the car you drive. From a purely logical point of view, keep the 240. It's not even halfway through its life expectancy (provided you maintain it properly and keep the shiny side up), whatever build errors there were have probably been sorted out in the past 10 years, it's cheaper to maintain, there's very little depreciation due to it already being written off economically, no car payments, if your state vehicle tax is based on car value you may pay less there, too, you can do most of your own work on it if you're so inclined. And as a Volvo nut, I'ld say stay with a REAL Volvo: boxy and rear wheel drive.

Bram

'94 944 Polar 176K

'74 164E 175K

'68 145S 210K

'69 142 unknown

Paul, Get the garlic, cross and wooden stake (it helps ward off the New Car Vampire). They drink blood. One of the worst investments known to man. You'll lose $2.5 K the second you drive it off the lot (it's now "used"). It will depreciate like a seive. In 4 yrs., you will have lost $12K. Keep the 240 for another 250K! Sorry, Am I ranting? Chris C.

.....and a new S40 is certainly a lot tighter than a '98 V70 with 67,500 miles. It smells a lot nicer, too.

I like the ergonomics better than the 850-SVC70. The motor is the 4-cylinder iteration of the alloy-block 5 and 6 cyl. "white motors" found in the 960-SV90-850SVC70-V70II-S60-S80. It is NOT a Mitsubishi motor. But it has nothing at all in common with your 4-cyl. iron-block "red motor".

The car is built on the same assembly line as the Mitsubishi Carisma (what a name!) in Holland. Since Volvo is now owned by Ford, and Mitsubishi is allied with Daimler-Chrysler, this relationship is unlikely to continue. Expect a major redesign and a different assembly plant soon.

Consumer Reports recommends the SV40, it's the only Volvo model they recommend.

I would not buy one, no manual transmission is available and the rear seat legroom is virtually non-existant. If my wife wanted one, I'd buy it for her tomorrow, but I've probably been married longer than you, and minor items, such as automobile choices, aren't worth fighting about. In my opinion.

I would wait a few more months, and look at the new, redesigned for 2002 Toyota Camry and the new, redesigned for 2002 Nissan Altima. The 2002 Altima is an impressive design from all I've seen, totally redesigned and larger than the Maxima. (A Maxi-Maxima?) The 2002 Camry is also an impressive design.

-Phil Punxsutawney

Well, I have one of each. A '90 244 and an '01 S40. They might be cousins, but from different sides of the family. Relatively speaking, the 240 is old school. Slow, a 'bit' under powered, not the best handling of cars (but much better with a few mods), all in all the "classic" Volvo.

The S40 on the other hand is much quicker, plenty of horses in the stock form, decent handling (but much better with a few mods) and FWD. AFAIK, the 1.9 engines much like the B230's are pretty bulletproof, the trannys I believe are the same or very similar to the trannies in the other FWD cars. Plus you can't beat the standard safety equipment.

I only have a bit over 2,000 miles on my S40 so I'm still learning the nuances. All things considered though, if Volvo were still building the 200 series I'd have a new one. After 15 years and 400+K its hard to give up driving bricks.

Drop me a line or Carlos at carlos@classiccats.cc and we'll tell you all we know on the 40 series. Carlos has had his apart a few times for modifications and I know he's pretty impressed with the structure.

Paul,

Off the top of my head ...

Merits of S40 - faster, better safety equipment (front airbags, side impact, rear whiplash), more amenities (cupholders, for one thing!), new car smell ...

Cons - FWD (which IMHO is a big con), smaller interior, it's not paid for ...

Dunno about better made ... check the S40 board for that. The engine is WAY different ... the S40 has a 1.8 aluminum block Mitsubishi engine versus 2.3 cast iron B230 (with a heritage for durability - design stems from the B21's, started in '75/'76).

Do note that I only said better safety equipment for the S40 ... it doesn't mean it's a safer car. If you recall, old Volvo ads showed the 240's crashing off 3 story buildings (passenger cage still intact) and stacking 6 of itself on the rooftop. Hmmm ... I don't see any ads similar to that anymore ...

-- Kane ... who recalls David Horowitz' Fight Back testing the roof claim, noting that it actually supported 9, on it's way to 10, when a sudden gust of wind came and toppled the stack over. They went with the truck test instead.

> Dunno about better made ... check the S40 board for that. The engine

> is WAY different ... the S40 has a 1.8 aluminum block Mitsubishi

> engine versus 2.3 cast iron B230 (with a heritage for durability -

> design stems from the B21's, started in '75/'76).

Umm.. No.

Yes the S40 engine is a full aluminium (except cylinder sleeves) 4-cyl engine, but it is definitely *no* mitsu engine. It's the same family engine as the inline-6 in the S/V90 and inline-5 in the 850. Should be fine at high milage as we're already seeing very high milage (150+kmiles) 850's on the FWD board..

Here in europe we do get a version with the special Mitsu GDI engine which is capable of running nearly 40mpg on an extreme lean-burn mixture with direct (in-cylinder) fuel injection.

Another non-volvo engine in the S/V40 is the TurboDiesel (also in europe), which is a Renault unit as Volvo does not make a 4-cyl Diesel engine.

The other gasoline engines (1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 2.0T and T4) are Volvo units.. Just take an engine from an 850 and chop off one cylinder..

Bye, Arno.

Oops - my bad.

Personally, I'm still questionable on aluminum blocks, even if they're sleeved. (BTW, 150k isn't considered very high, as there are quite a few here with the 'ol red-blocks clocking well past 300k and still going strong.)

-- Kane ... and then, there's Irv Gordon ...

I never got as far as wondering what the driveline merits are in the 40 series cars (and recently the 60 series cars). In my opinion neither one of the cars have a useable backseat. I didn't need to look any further than that. Why own (or even produce) a four door auto with rear seating as ridiculous as that??? Once again- that's only my personal opinion.

Randy

We love our 240s, they are a hobby. But I saw something last weekend that made me laugh, a 1993 240 Classic. That was a sure way of getting rid of the last 240s that couldn't sell and jacking up the price!!

It's impossible to compare a 8-16 year old car with a 2001 model. Plus, the S40 is not really in the same category, the S60 is. Using whether or not marketing shows the cars hurled off a 3-story building to determine safety, well, don't quit your day job! Ahhh....the S60 has no usable backseat. You want backseat, get a checker.

Drive any new 2001 car and you will see how dated the feel of the 240 is. Any car such as Hyundai Elantra, Nissan Sentra will feel like a performance car in comparison.

I will have to agree with all the rest of the folks supporting what a great car the 240 is. My sample is 14 years old. Sure, it has a lot of miles on it, and its not the best one out there, but after driving friends cars that are 10 to 14 years newer, I still would rather drive it than any other car. The doors still shut like day one, the ride is still great, seats comfy (and warm too!), NO car payments, and styling that you just can't match in this day and age (waaaay too many generic bubbles floating around here.) Plus the safety cage stuff built in. All the air-bags and stuff in new cars are silly and just an excuse for car makers to build less sturdy of a car-- I roll the seat as far away from them as I can when I ride in friends cars, and even though they are present, I don't feel quite as safe in other cars. Anywho-- that was my opinion.

>We love our 240s, they are a hobby.

They may be a hobby to you Mr. Titan but they are my first line vehicles.

>But I saw something last weekend

> that made me laugh, a 1993 240 Classic. That was a sure way of

> getting rid of the last 240s that couldn't sell and jacking up the

> price!!

I believe it has been pointed out that you are incorrect on that point.

> It's impossible to compare a 8-16 year old car with a 2001 model.

I did that because that is what the gentleman was asking us to do, and I think I mentioned several times it was MY OPINION.

> Plus, the S40 is not really in the same category, the S60 is.

Neither car is in the same category as a 240!

>You want backseat, get a checker.

Even more difficult to come by than a nice 240, but at least we agree on one thing- the Checker has a real back seat. I only want a back seat if it is useable, otherwise give me two doors and a top that goes down.

> Drive any new 2001 car and you will see how dated the feel of the 240

> is. Any car such as Hyundai Elantra, Nissan Sentra will feel like a

> performance car in comparison.

Please, Mr. Titan, stop with the humor! My work puts me behind the wheel of various 2001 new rental units. It's always great to get back to the airport and into my 82 240 Turbo, or my 88 or 89 240 DL or if I'm really lucky my wife's 10 year old 740 Turbo Wagon. If your "hobby car" has a dated feel perhaps you should spend the time necessary to bring it back. I suggest all new bushings front and rear, ball joints, tie rod ends and rack if necessary. Boge Turbo Gas struts and shocks are my preference and of course you will need to put at least Turbo car sway bars on it if you don't want to spring for IPD's bars. I'm totally awake- enjoy your hobby and your Hyundai. Thanks for making my day.

Randy

Actually, the only reason they continued making the 240 so late into 1993, was because they were still getting orders for them...the last of the 240s were basically handbuilt, on almost an emergency basis to fill orders...the "classics" were not introduced as a gimmick to get rid of a bad selling car, they were made because Volvo's 240 had been going for over 20 years, and were the mainstay of the Volvo brand. It was sort of a tribute to the car that made Volvo the car company that is. Volvo might not be here would the 240 not have been as successful as it was.

I see early 90s 240s that go for over $12K...maybe they were slow, and a little ponderous through turns, but they are reliable as anything...and just...so....Volvo.

Well, the 240 Classic may have been a marketing gimmick, but it sure has some neat little appointments. It was the only 240 you could buy in British racing green, had awesome leather seats, cool alloy wheels, and had wood trim. It was also the best appointed 240 ever. I would love to own one someday!

Mr Titan wrote:

<...>

> Drive any new 2001 car and you will see how dated the feel of the 240

> is. Any car such as Hyundai Elantra, Nissan Sentra will feel like a

> performance car in comparison.

Tell that to a turbo owner ...

-- Kane ... who also notes that all cars will feel crappier after 100k+ miles.