I've finally realized that the reason our S/V90's have so much breakage is that Volvo cheaped out. The 140's (for the most part) were overbuilt. The 240's were very sturdily built. As time went on, Volvos became less and less well built because they couldn't offer the luxury content that the market demanded and still keep the quality, at a competitive price. What's strange is that the Japanese succeeded where Volvo failed. Must have something to do with suppliers and labor rates in the EU (where most Volvo parts are made?) vs labor rates in China (where many Japanese parts are made?).

For instance, today while putting windshield washer fluid in the V90, TWO parts of the washer bottle broke. I normally walk on eggshells around this car because it is so fragile so I was being careful, I was not being forceful. The blue cap split in the middle as I was carefully pressing it back on. When I tried to pull the cap off to inspect the failure, the fill-neck pulled out of the reservoir and spilled out the fluid that was in the neck. : (

There is no excuse for this except cheaping out. They spec'd a low quality, too thin plastic for the lid. They spec'd a two piece reservior design instead of a one piece design. The fill neck can off course be reinserted, but once out, is now more likely to come out again and to leak at the junction. The two piece design, while maybe cheaper to install, is prone to leakage.

My 1994 Toyota Corolla (4 years older) has had a 100% reliable, unbreakable windshield washer fluid storage system. I wonder why.

This is just one small area but is axiomatic of the whole car. They cheaped out on everything in order to offer a high content car and as a result, we are doomed to continuous failure of plastic, pot-metal, and electrical parts that are not up to the old Volvo standards. This is particularly inexcusable in a Swedish car company that they would not carefully select parts that maintain their strength in low tempuratures. This is a large reason while I will never buy another new Volvo.

So was the S90 designed and built by the real volvo company...?

are new volvos partly Fords?

Yes, it was designed before Ford.

Last November, I bougth a 1989 MB 300SE. It's the last of the cost no object Mercedes Benz cars.
--
Warren Bain - '99 V70GLT G-Valve > 80K mi, 89 300SE, '96 965 >120Kmi, near Manassas Va.. Check the 700/900 FAQ via the 'features' pull down menu. This post written with 100% recycled electrons.

i have a good friend at work that drives a circa late 1990s or 2000ish MB 500S that strikes me as a car built with no particular cost in mind, including the double pane side glass....
--
John Shatzer, '97 V90 @ 105K

I raise my glass in a toast to you, sir. Your eloquent explanation of why Volvo has taken to manufacturing garbage cans as opposed to automobiles is tops. Like you, I will never own another Volvo newer than the 940 series. My S90 was a total disappointment and, after four years of frustration, I went to Toyota and now sleep very well. My Solara is appointed as well as any Volvo, drives as well and certainly is more reliable. Thanks again for your post.
--
Roy Olson

I think your conclusion regarding tolerances in the 960 is a rather large of leap, but Volvo plastic is legendary, and not reserved for the 960s. The cars are clearly changing for many of the reasons cited, especially the overall weight considerations and increased competition among makers. But I don't think there's any eveidence that breaking filler caps (its happened to me too) is a strong indicator of important engine tolerances, etc.
--
John Shatzer, '97 V90 @ 105K

you mention cheaping out as a way to put out a car with more features. well, it's our fault. how much do all those cup holders weigh? headlight washers, 6-10 speakers for the radio, power windows, sunroof, etc. gas mileage has to get better, otherwise the guzzler tax kicks in. why do you think those alloy engines are so tightly spec'd? can't weigh as much as a b21 and still have lotsa power and torque. i've lamented the cheap plastic on the 700s for years. but, it's the wave of the future. look at a 190 or 260 mercedes door panel. the vinyl where the armrest is lifts off the panel and tears. a seperate armrest weighs more and is more money. look at how the price climbed on a 240. the s/v40 is the cheap car volvo has. anyone with a base 240 up to 81 or so, no power anything. by the time 93 came around, the car was nicer that any v6 sold in the 70s-no prv jokes, we are talking options and price points. and it was too much money, they didn't sell and volvo had to kill it. why do you think the s40 floorpan is the same as the new focus-it's cheaper. it's gotta be done somehow, so we can hang more bloody cup holders, dvd players and who knows what else. what do i drive-an 86 toy corolla gts 2 cam, 16v with a power sunroof-no manual available. i replaced a 78 242 m46 with a 76 242 m46 and then to an 80 gt-then got the toy. why the 240s, they are simple. why the toy, well it's simple, too and alot more fun. only other 240 i'd consider besides 76-80 is a 91-93. airbags and abs-gee, there's some more weight, that's why all the plastic. and so it goes, chuck.

That stupid part is a holdover from the 700 line that is the ancestor of the 900/90 series. It's a true weak spot up and down the car line. One of the things that they just never did right, even though it's problems were obvious back in 1985.
I guess you can look on the bright side- at least it's a pretty mundane thing that won't cost a ton to replace.... it could have been a problem with that glass sunroof....
--
Rob Bareiss, New London CT ::: '87 244DL/M47- 225K, 88 744GLE- 209K, 91 244 183K. Also responsible for the care and feeding of: 88 745GLE, 229K, 88 244GL, 146K, 87 244DL, 235K, 88 245DL, 236K

I just bought an S90....all the ones I saw including V980 series had a sun roof prob....the plastic inside the runners cracks and breaks...I had new slider gates put in for 212$

Having 7 240s people ask all the time if they should buy a new Volvo. None want to be seen in those old boxmobiles;-) I say I would not, but mostly have little to offer in hard evidence as to why not. I cop out, pointing to Consumer Reports, but as thorough as they are, they would not find the trends you've seen testing these cars straight from the dealership.

But in front of me I have the '89 car issue where they predict the 240's reliability to be "average". Their survey data on earlier years' frequency of repair records give the 240 series neutral overall trouble index, but when combined with the cost of service turns solid black.

So I just tell them I'm not qualified to pick a new car.

Sorry to hear even a RWD holdout has been disappointed.
--
Art Benstein near Baltimore

There is no way I would trust Consumer Report. The short time they test VS the long time one ones a Volvo just does not add up. Some of their rave vehicles are only for the brief moment. You really need a place like the BBoard to see what a vehicle is like and what it takes to keep it going. Certain Volvo models do have things that go out and we on the board pretty well know them. Re the blue caps: I have a stock on hand as they are cheap.

Too bad no one makes a car similar to these old beasties.


dick

Think/thank FORD? It did not take them long to switch the entire Volvo line to the cheaper to build FWD (IMHO sucks). It will not be much longer before you will probably see a Ford Taurus with Volvo badges on it.. Go figure.

I don;t know how you figure this.
VOlvo was already on the second generation of their FWD cars when Ford acquired Volvo in 2000. Ford had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the 850 (begun in 1990) or the facelift/update package to turn it into the S70/V70 in early 1997, as a 1998 model.
Car platforms take YEARS to develop, as do drivetrain packages. One can only hope that Ford is going to finally learn how to make a reliable engine and transmission, now that they have Volvo's passenger car technology in house.
The first outcome of the marriage that I know of is the new S40, which is supposed to share some stuff mechanically with the next-gen Focus and Mazda 3.
I suppose it was bound to happen. Till then, Volvo is still buying transmissions from General Motors for the godawful S80 beasts. Sooooo glad I will never own one of these things.
--
Rob Bareiss, New London CT ::: '87 244DL/M47- 225K, 88 744GLE- 209K, 91 244 183K. Also responsible for the care and feeding of: 88 745GLE, 229K, 88 244GL, 146K, 87 244DL, 235K, 88 245DL, 236K

IIRC, the parts that failed were the Volvo spec ones - a solenoid or something.

That GM tranny ain't perfect, but at least on the Cadillacs, they didn't fail with such frequency as in the S80.

The S40/V50 shares a platform with the European Focus and the Mazda 3. Mechanically (and worse, electrically) will be Volvo, though.

-- Kane
--
Blossom II - '91 745Ti/M46 ... Bubbles - '74 144GL/BW35 ... Buttercup - '86 245GL/AW70 ... The Wayback Machine - '64 P220/M40

"Think/thank FORD?"

Ford never touched the 960/S90 platform, other then letting it die a quiet death.

DEWFPPO

--
1998 S90 066,800 and 1995 964 150,200