Joel posted a week or so ago about his (very nice) '71 142e. He emailed a scan of the original window sticker... here it is. Looks like it was a fairly stock example, which of course, was really pretty loaded.

Still cost less than an 1800e and a 164e, but a lot of money for a 142...

--
-Matt '70 145s, '65 1800s, '66 122s wagon, others inc. '53 XK120 FHC

Matt,
Thanks for posting the window sticker.
Volvo was going after the 2002 BMW with the 142E.
The little extras it came with included a 6 cyl driveshaft with bigger U-joints, black leather seats, high comp engine, overdrive,the wheels were the same but were dressed nicely in chrome rings and hub with chrome lug nuts, and along with the overdrive came a 4:30 rear end which really helped the get up and go.
I was looking at an old Volvo Model VIN #s chart and noted that only 1500 71 142Es were ever made worldwide. So many have been lost to racing and parts.
I bought the vehicle with 98,000 mi in 1976. She is the one girl that has stuck with me the last 29 years, she is swedish, and has aged so much better than the other ladies I married. She is a keeper.

Joel
--
Antique Swedish Steel (Never Rusty) Silver 71 142E

Re the 4.3 rearend. Am I right in assuming that the ones with the BW35 came with the same 4.3 differential? I'm asking because I swapped the AT in mine for an M41, and that would mean that there's a good chance that I actually have the right combination in the drivetrain, although, there was no premeditation involved.
Bob S.

Hey Joel,
No problem posting the picture...
My question though... total production of 1500? That seems *awful* low to me. Seems these aren't (or weren't anyhow) all that uncommon. Are you sure that figure isn't for the 142GT? Those are a rare version, and I've only seen pictures of them.

They had unuque badging, interior (different steering wheel anyhow), often times unique graphics and the like. I could see such low production numbers of them...

-Matt
--
-Matt '70 145s, '65 1800s, '66 122s wagon, others inc. '53 XK120 FHC

Matt,
Back when there were mechanics that worked on a 140, it was my mechanic that had pointed out the VIN chart and the 1500 fiqure to me in his shop, so it was his interpretation of the VIN chart as well. That is my recollection.
I am familiar with the GT but have never seen one or know of one.
I think roadworthy 71 142E volvos are even more rare because of their desirabilty for racing, compared to other bricks. So many have been changed to racers.
I am keeping a list of those I come across in the forum. I am curious as to how many are left?
Joel
--
Antique Swedish Steel (Never Rusty) Silver 71 142E

Well...
a couple quick observations.. First, Joel's car had only one option best I can tell...that being the overdrive. All them things with the * are standard I think. Which is to say that a stock '71E was pretty much loaded. But there were a lot of other dealer installed options I think...

Second, as rare as they are, I can't think that only 1500 of them were made. I might be wrong, and if I am, I'm sorry I've sent two of 'em to the crusher.. But I've still got the good parts.

Third.. as much as I hate to say it, a bone stock 2002 would blow the doors off any 142 in every performance aspect. them Bimmers are just so light and well balanced, there's no comparison. I've never driven a Tii version of the 02, but I'm sure its a wicked fun car.. The basket case carbed 02 that I had was one of the funnest cars I've ever driven... second only to a 3rd generation RX7, and maybe a Jag E-type.

I'd say the only thing the '71E has over a 2002 is long distance comfort, and safety. Which are biggies for a road car. Outside of that... its a matter of personal taste.

I'll also say that all things considered in stock form, the '71 B20E found in the same year 142E, as well as '70 and '71 1800E is about the sweetest running, smooth pulling, high revving pushrod engine that Volvo made. They are a kick..

Enjoy 'em if you got 'em...
--
-Matt '70 145s, '65 1800s, '66 122s wagon, others inc. '53 XK120 FHC

Wow, Matt, that's great. I bet that "electric rear window defroster" came in real handy in Hawaii. I notice that they don' mention the console with storage compartment and arm rest between the front seats. Maybe they put that in only if the car came with airconditioning, which took up the space of the drop-down glove compartment.
Thanks for sharing,
Bob S.

interesting. I never thought of my dear 144 as a sports sedan though. hmmm...
--
...and the bricks keep on rolling

Well... this is for a '71 142E... different ball of wax. That particular model and year was unique having had injection a year before everything else, and a bunch of other goodies not usually seen... The difference in feel between the '71 E and any other stock 140 is rather significant.

I figure the '71 142E was Volvos answer to the likes of the BMW 2002 and similar 'sporty' sedans...
--
-Matt '70 145s, '65 1800s, '66 122s wagon, others inc. '53 XK120 FHC

Were the tires any different on the 71E models compared to the carb models and what not? The suspension was the same wasn't it? And yeah, what else could you have gotten in those days for $4k, isn't that a bit? Not that I really know, being from way after that era...
--
new sig in progress...

More than a Chevy or Ford, BTW.
--
98 V70Rawd(101Kmi), 95 854T(85K mi), 88 245(165K mi)

I think the standard equipment on a 2002 was not as good as that on
a 142. The fuel injection system is more primitive on the 2002tii and
I don't think even the later 2002s got FI even as all 140s had it by
1973. Also, the brakes on a 140 are far superior to those on a 2002.

The 2002 does have independent rear suspension and BMW used the same
basic motor on into the 320 years so some upgrades are easier, and of
course people like the BMW more than the 142 and I suspect the
aftermarket support is far better for the 2002 than the 142.
chris

The tii was the sportiest 2002, with mechanical FI. The baseline model and ti were carbureted.

Volvo also went gunning for BMW with the 242GT. I recently came across an article in which some magazine (and I can't remember which) road and track tested a 242GT and a BMW 325 (I think it was). The Volvo outperformed or matched it in every category, even though the BMW had a larger 6-cylinder engine (note that this is a non-turbo Volvo). With a really expert driver, the BMW was a fraction of a second faster in lap times, but the Volvo was much easier to drive at its limit and more consistent.

I suspect the aftermarket support is far better for the 2002 than the 142

That may not necessarily be true anymore. What would you want the 142 to do that it doesn't already? There are a lot of possibilities these days...

yeah, I kind of see it now, with that high compression engine, OD and two-door. Interesting.
--
...and the bricks keep on rolling