Just curious: What's the best year for the 244, in terms of durability and/or performance? Is the '93 Classic the ultimate culmination, or is it saddled with computer and electrical stuff that's prone to break? What about the 244 Turbo?

John
88 244DL stick 101K

Just stay away from the '75s with the B-20 engine. Nothing against the B-20 which was a fine engine, but the later B-21/23/230 engines were better.

For the most part, these cars are just as reliable from '76-'93, other then the wiring harness issues of the '81 - '87 models.

Parked on the side of my street:

1976 245 DL 289K miles (Blown Engine, but it will be running soon.)
1977 244 DL 300K+ miles
1980 245 DL 436K miles
1986 244 DL 138K miles
--
If you listen to the radio in Portland, OR, you may know me as "Portland's Favorite Soul Brother!"

I was under the impression that the infamous 561 ECU ran '89 to '91, leaving the '92-93 free of this risk?
If so, then the '92-93's, with ABS as well airbags, have to be the best :-).

I do believe you are correct.

However, I think all or most of the 89's and only some of the 90's and 91's got them. Not sure about that though...

--
Jim 90 244DL 242K

I have an 85 240ti and from reading the problems a lot of the Turbo's have had I think the 85 was the best since alot of the bugs where worked out as thay went along.I wouldn't get rid this car for anything.I have done alot of work on my car and my wife thinks I spent alot to get it where it is today but the money was well spent on a car that will last me a long time.Charlie

Good for you, Charlie! My girlfriend thinks I should not spend much on mine, b/c I bought it for $1200, but it's worth more than that to me.

Did the old turbos have lots of problems? I love the coupes, a lot of which were turbo, I think.

John

I don't know when thay started using a intercooler but it added life for the turbo an add more boost.Mine is a 4 door and I like the look of it better then the 2 door.I don't know which one thay built more of.In the 4 yrs. that I have owned it I have never been stuck on the side of the road and even though it doesn't have air bags I feel safer in it then I do when I drive the 2003 chev.van(work vehicle and not mine).I payed $900 for it 4 yrs. ago and put about $2500 in it(doing all repairs myself)and I think with all I have done the only thing left is the lower half I haven't touched and don't think I will have to.205 K and runing strong.Charlie

One can open up a real can of worms with a question like that!
My two cents:

I own 2 '84's, a DL wagon and a turbo. I also have a '94 940 wagon. If I had a time machine and could pick up any of these cars new, it'd be the turbo. Mine has 278k miles on it and is basically fine except for the dreaded bushings. I like the flat decklid better than the curved ones on later models. The US composite headlights are positively awful on the later models. My 240's lights are much better than the 940. The B23F in my DL does not use any oil between 5k changes. Neither of my 240's have ever left me stranded; 940 w/ B230FD once left me walking with a computer problem. All the goodies one gets with the newer models are nice, but....
Personally, I don't care for airbags. It's my opinion that most brick drivers drive bricks at least partially due to safety reasons, both active and passive. If I'm going to tangle with a Ford Excavation in a smaller car, I'd rather it be a Volvo. Chances are, I'd not be hitting it, but the other way 'round, in a different area of the car than the front making airbags useless.
OK, maybe that was 3 cents worth, but think of what you actually paid for it....
Mark
--
'94 940 NA Wagon, '84 244t, '84 245 DL

The 1979 244GL......the most durable, realiable, and fun to drive 240 I ever owned! I bought it off my Dad for $1000.00 in 1992 and drove it up until last year.....never had a mojor problem with it!

'88 244 w/ M47 is hard to beat.
'79 242 w/ M46 too
'91-93 244/245 close to perfect

There are no (serious) electrical issues in any 240's except for the bio-degradable harness editions. The 561 ECU is easily repaired with a used 951 so I do not consider that too significant.

1988 is an excellent year.

Many here like the 91-93. I tend to agree, although I like my 90 very much. I test drove many other years and my 90 drove better than any model year I tested including a 93.

I guess it depends how important air bags (90-93) and ABS are (91-93) are to the buyer. All the later models have also have a stronger version of the b230f engines. The downside is they are more complicated than the earlier cars.

I really think it comes down to how "tight" and well maintained a car is. Some cars are just "tighter" than others, ie. they feel and drive better than others right from the factory...

--
Jim 90 244DL 242K

Yeah, the absence of airbags in my '88 worries me a wee bit, though the solidity of the 240 design compensates a lot. Still, I'd hate to get rammed by an Excursion or a Hummer.

If only Volvo would bring back the 240, like VW did with the Bug (though hopefully Volvo would make something much more reliable than the new Beetle). I'm thinking 5 or 6 cylinders, aluminum body, suicide doors...

"If only Volvo would bring back the 240..."

You mean if only Ford would bring back the 240?

Best let sleeping dogs lie, IMO, as there will never be another true Volvo. Look what Ford is doing to Jaguar.

Now, if it came with a 4.6L 32V-DOHC I might be a little interested...

1988 Hands down

Some say 1988 is the best year.
You don't have the harness problem of the earlier models, and you don't have the 1989 ECU problem.

--
'89 244DL M47 162K miles

I'm glad to hear that! I just bought a '88 a few months ago :-)
Although it did leave me stranded yesterday becasue the bushings were worn to much and it stopped charging.

We had a '76 GL in the family from new till 2001 and it only left us stranded once and that was because the bushings were worn and the battery went flat :-) In general it didn't really have any faults.

Cheers