Been driving 240s since '95. So far, strictly non-turbo 4-cyl. 2.3L.
Am considering a 900 for my next car - though hopefully not for a year and a half.

What are the good engines?

I heard nasty things about the 16-valve 2.3L 4-cyl. and also about the 6-cyl.
Are there "safe" examples of the 16-valve, such as later ones?
Which engine is "interference" and needs a new timing belt about every 20K mi. or so?

I drive about 45,000 miles yearly, mostly for commuting!

My 2 cents are that if you want a 900 rwd, get the post 95 960 with the improved IL6. It is far better for mileage than a B230F n/a hauling around the sam weight 900 chassis of the 940. Having had numerous 740Ti, a bunch of 240's and two 960's, the smoothness and torque of the late IL6 got the best mpg of the lot (equal to my '89 245 w/5-speed), around 27-29 on the highway (doing 80+) The B230F/T is not even close in hp to the IL6, and if taken care of will last just as long. (70k mi TB intervals) The key is to get the car that will run at highway speeds at the lowest rpm's, where the constant 'rolling' resistance is low and momentum is achieved, not one that has to constantly raise rpm's or turbo boost to find enough hp to attain and hold speed. A BMW for example is very good at this with the 2.6l IL6 engine, getting about 32 mpg. I had a '67 Mercedes 230 w/2.3l IL6 that got 35 mpg at 100 mph.
BTW, all of these cars require 30k service intervals of brake, coolant& t-stat, auto tranny fluids, plus 5k intervals on the semi-syn oil to keep them runnning 100's of k mi, so your kidding yourself that anything can be more cost efficient if let go to once every 2 yrs regardless of miles. This puts even the Honda's & Toyotas in the same maintenance cost category.
Very few people get the rated optimum mpg out of the Japanese cars, and numbers like 24-30 are more like it, given the 65+ speeds on todays highways.
Hell, even my Brother-in-law with a Toyota Prius gets 34 mpg, not the 42+ it is advertised to get (on the highway at 65). A friend has a '02 Honda Accord V6 that struggles to get 24 mpg on the highway, and the wife has a '95 Accord that gets a poor 22 mpg mixed driving with the 2.0 IL4 engine.
There is always a trade-off of premimum vs regular gas. Having bounced back and forth between reg & prem on all my cars, incl the 245DL na/ B230F, the better mileage of using premimum gas has always remained the more cost efficient way than running regular gas and paying less at the pump, but suffering a 3-4 mpg difference. It is always best to use the highest grade you can afford, and not only on a Volvo, but certainy with the one's we're discussing here. The car will run better and last longer, especially with highway driving.
Having a car that can cruise with comfort and safety at nearly 30 mpg is better than having a car that may get a 2-3 mpg improvement, and is challenged to keep up a modest pace on the highway, working harder and ultimately requiring more maintenance.
My new V70 2.5 T is a pleasure getting 31 mpg at 65-75 mph on the highway. I wouldn't trade any of my Volvo's for a Honda or Toyota
--
'89 245 Sportwagon, '04 V70 2.5T Sportwagon

Interesting what you write about the IL6 in post-95 Volvo 900s.
(do you include the '95's in the "good" group, or just '96 onwards?

What's the timing belt change schedule for the post-95 IL6's?

Also interesting about the actual fuel economy of the Japanese cars.

Re. fuel octane, I'm doing a study now.
Driving 75 mi. each way to work gives me an opportunity to gather some data.
I'm driving a whole week on 87 octane, then a whole week on 89 octane.
Tracking exact miles driven and qty fuel purchased.
I've made a couple notes re. weather and anything else unusual.

I'm curious to see how it works out. Will probably post results to the 200 forum, maybe here also.

The '95 and later 960 uses a re-designed engine, better low end torque, smoother, better mileage than the early up to '94 engines. The chassis and suspension is also vastly improved w/irs and carbon fiber rear leaf spring, handles and rides much better. A lot of these changes came in the 95 model year, buit not all of the 95 models have them. By 96 all the sedans and wagons have the better suspension and lifters which were prone to failure and knock even in the 95 engines.
Timing belt change is 70k miles.
As far as fuel, I wouldn't use anything less than 89 octane on the n/a b230, and nothing less than 91 oct on the turbo's or B6304 n/a IL6.(that is what is in the Volvo owners manual) I personally use 93 oct in all my Volvo's.
--
'89 245 Sportwagon, '04 V70 2.5T Sportwagon

Correction: Timing belt change 7 years or 70 k miles whichever comes first. I changed the TB on a 96 960 when it was 60k mi and 7 yrs.
--
'89 245 Sportwagon, '04 V70 2.5T Sportwagon

I've seen 30MPG (US) on a few occasions with the 940, so it can be done. I always use self-serve, always top off, so I believe those are real numbers. But they occurred under ideal conditions....steady 70MPH on I-5, no winds, or maybe even a light tailwind, warm but not hot day, so A/C use was intermittent. More typically the MPG's are 26-27 on the highway. The low-geared axle ratio (4.10) doesn't help. Around town it burns a US gallon about every 18-21 miles.

Be prepared for lacklustre performance (114BHP and 3100lbs), particularly in OD on the highway.
--
Bob (son's 81-244GL B21F, dtr's 83-244DL B23F, 'my' 94-944 B230FD; plus grocery-getter Dodge minivan, hobbycar 77 MGB, and numerous old motorcycles)

"typically the MPG's are 26-27 on the highway"

That would be OK.
I'm now getting 24-25 mpg with
245, 2.3L non-turbo, 195-75-14 tires "summer" tires.
Speed about 65 mph. A bit slower uphill, and faster downhill, like the truckers.

This post received 6 replies so far - thank you for all.

Re. the fuel economy tangent that's been discussed - - -
nearly any other newer mid-size or smaller front-drive car will get better gas mileage than a rear-drive Volvo. The real mileage champs don't provide as much safety as I'd like, and the remaining contenders are so close to the 940's in mpg that I'm willing to overlook the difference.

Spending that much time driving, I really want a safe, protective car. No tin box for me!

I don't like giving up 8-10% of my fuel economy to 4-wheel drive. Rear drive with 2 or 4 snows has been great for 10 years of New England winters.

Of the current high-reliability cars, I think that only the Toyota Camry/Solara are contenders in terms of safety. If not for the waste of 4WD, 4Runner and Rav4 would be contenders (quite safe by the IIHS Driver Fatality statistics, see www.iihs.org). Subaru is a reliability contender but not a safety one. Honda Accord is apparently nearly as safe as Camry, but not as easy to work on.

Takes me back to 940's and Camry's.

While we're on the topic, the hybrid engines get their best mpg in city driving. On the highway, they're not too different from a regular engine of similar power. And of course, you can't yet buy them for just a couple thousand dollars.

So that seems to bring it around to a 940 or a Camry if I'll change models from 240's.

If I ever buy a smaller SUV it would be a Subaru Forester. Practical, pretty good mileage and more fun to drive than a Toyota (especially w/5 sp.!!).

Most importantly, the Forester IS the safest small SUV out there. It's crash test results compare well with Volvo too. Check crashtest.com or the gov./ins. agency site which I believe is iihs.org?? for more....

--
90 244DL 1/4 million miles - original engine/drivetrain :)

My sister just got rid of her 2003 Forester after having to replece the clutch 3 times. Last time, the dealer "confessed" that Foresters have had trans issues; I believe that there may have been a recall. Also, her gas mileage was not that great and compared even to my 245, the comfort level is low in the Forester.

I think the right tires and a little weight in the trunk will ressolve any RWD Volvo traction problems.

Just my two cents.

Don't think you read the rest of my posts before you wrote this. Basically, I said that I don't love SUV's, but given a choice I would choose a Forester over a Toyota because they are car-based and drive better than the truck-based Toyotas.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Volvo guy, that's why I'm on the BB.

I love RWD cars. I've also owned 2 BMW's in addition to my 240.

"I think the right tires and a little weight in the trunk will ressolve any RWD Volvo traction problems."

Fact is that w/o snow tires most RWD aren't very good in snow and ice. Some (like BMW's and Mercedes are downright dangerous). Although I think 240's with snows are remarkably good in the snow of New England for a RWD car, they still aren't 4WD. Haven't driven 700's or 900's in snow, but I understand they are worse than a 200. My 240 WITHOUT snows will fishtail and barely navigate snow, nevermind N.E. ice....



--
90 244DL 1/4 million miles - original engine/drivetrain :)

I've got snow experience with 240 and 940 and the 940 is worse. The locking diff makes it step sideways the instant it breaks traction, which means frequently. Even with good snow tires, it's a challenge in conditions that the 240 handles easily.
--
Bob (son's 81-244GL B21F, dtr's 83-244DL B23F, 'my' 94-944 B230FD; plus grocery-getter Dodge minivan, hobbycar 77 MGB, and a few old motorcycles)

My previous post - - -
"(quite safe by the IIHS Driver Fatality statistics, see www.iihs.org)"
actually meant "won the category by a mile".

For the statistics, go to
http://www.iihs.org/srpdfs/sr4003.pdf
covers 199-2002 models
and go to pages 6 and 7 for these small and mid-size SUV statistics:
- 4Runner: 12 deaths/million car-years
- Rav4: - - 18 deaths/million car-years
- Forester: 70 deaths/million car-years

What I like about the IIHS fatality stats is that they count fatalities per million registered car-years. (1/4 million cars registered for 2 years each = 1/2 million registered car-years.)

This is different from crash tests which attempt to predict what will happen in a crash (also worth studying).
A vehicle that inspires safer driving by the owner/driver, or inspires respect and avoidance from other vehicle's drivers, will have lower fatalities, and will do better in these statistics than simple crash tests will show.

Of course these statistics also include the "real world" crash tests that occur during accidents, and in far greater quantity and variety than is provided by the lab crash tests.

I will check out the iihs.org pages you cited. Good to know all angles of the safety issue.

My position still stands on a Forester. Most Toyota's are deadly dull to drive. They put me to sleep - dangerous in itself! For an SUV (and I don't particularly like SUV's mind you) it drives much better than the similar Toyota's. The Forester is car-based, the 4-Runner is truck-based and drives like a truck IMO.

BTW - I understand the crash tests are even better for the newer version of the Forester, which I believe came out in 2003?? Will check on that.

Me, I'm willing to trade off a little safety for a more fun, interesting, better handling and performing car. A better road/performing car has an active safety advantage that can't be overlooked. Accidents can sometimes be avoided. That needs to be factored in when evaluating overall safety. No stats do this! That is why I'd choice to drive a BMW performance type car that has a little lower passive safety rating versus a Toyota that has a higher one that is deadly dull to drive...

Guess it is clear I don't like Toyotas much, eh! Do respect their reliability, but all the models I have driven have been boring.

That being said, buy a 940! A 940 turbo or possibly a 3 series BMW will be my next car of choice.


--
90 244DL 1/4 million miles - original engine/drivetrain :)

Yes, I like a fun ride too.

Would be nice if you could spiff up a Camry to handle a bit better at reasonable cost. I haven't looked into that yet. Biggest thing out there seems to be "body kits" but they do nothing for me, and probably reduce the car's safety factor. Get you traffic tickets too, just for looking like you're fast. Volvo RWD's look like they couldn't possibly be speeding...

Volvo RWD cars just do have a certain "cool factor" that comes from being that combination of foreign-luxury-cheap to own-nearly historical.

Subaru does have that "renegade" factor.

My previous 245 had IPD sway bars - definitely fun.
Also had limited slip diff. for a while. Sad story there.
Still might transfer the IPD/s to my current 245 (daily ride),
but I read they do stress the steering gear and tires some.
I had to replace the rack on that 245 twice.
Dunno if it had anything to do with the IPD sway bars.
Handled great! (currently retired in driveway, still runs)

6 cylinder reputaion is mainly based on the 760 PRV v6, completly differnt engines...as with all things avoid the early ones and get a later one when they have sorted the bugs out...who buys mk1 of ANYTHING

"6 cylinder reputaion is mainly based on the 760 PRV v6"

There were some significant problems with the early I-6. The alumnium alloy from which the blocks are made was prone to oxidation, exacerbated by using certain types of anti-freeze. The result for many owners of these cars was a block that hemorrhaged anti-freeze.

If memory serves, Volvo replaced quite a few engines in early 960s. I believe that the problem had been abated by the '94 or '95 model year, but you can check the FAQ for a more accurate account.

yep...like i said in another post who buys mk1 of anything???...

but the white block engines (taken as a whole) are good engines...look in the FWD forum loads of ppl in the 200k+ area...

i have one of eachand the red block is much more maintenance hungry...

maybe i have good white block and a bad red block...but we have had several reds in the family and the only truely great one was a b18...now THAT was an engine and a half...

The 92 and 93 960's have really weak cam drives. And leaky block problems.

Here's my $.02. If you are driving that far each yr, get a Honda or Toyota (or something small and reliable).

Examples:

- 45,000 miles @$2.00USD/gallon @ 28MPG Volvo 900 = 1,607 gallons of gas or $3,214 on yearly fuel costs

- - 45,000 miles @$2.00USD/gallon @ 38MPG Honda/Toyota etc = 1,184 gallons of gas or $2,368 on yearly fuel costs.

$846/yr difference in fuel costs between 28MPG and 38MPG.
--
Norm Cook Vancouver BC; 1989 745T 204,000KM

In all fairness, let's compare apples to apples:


HIGHWAY FUEL EFFICIENCY RATINGS

1995 Volvo 940: 28 mpg (roughly)

1995 Toyota Camry: 31 mpg (5-spd)/28 mpg (auto)

1995 Honda Accord: 31 mpg (5-spd)/30 mpg (auto)

The purchase prices of the cars listed above are all going to be about the same.

If you want to spend considerably more money, you can get a 2005 Accord or Camry, but you're still only going to get 34 mpg.

Jeff Pierce
--
'93 945 Turbo ( one kickass family car ! ), '92 Mercedes 190E (my daily driver), '53 Willys-Overland Pickup (my snow-plow truck/conversation piece -- sold to a loving home), '85 Jeep CJ-7 w/ Fisher plow

It doesn't have to be an Accord or Camry--why not Civic or Corolla or something else base line?

I base it, in part, on my own experience. I get about 25MPG (CDN gallon; 160oz) mix of hyway/city with the Volvo; it's about 33MPG with the '84 Accord (1.6L engine).
--
Norm Cook Vancouver BC; 1989 745T 204,000KM

Hey Norm,

True, and don't get me wrong, I have always liked Hondas, and Toyotas are good cars, but what happens when another car plows into a Civic vs. say a 940? I think that even by today's standards the 700/900 body is still very safe. Just a consideration, and I certianly do agree with your cost calculations.
--
Chris. Halifax N.S. '91 745Ti, 291K km and '91 745 NA, 391K km.

It is a risk, yes. But it's a cost/benefit tradeoff.

I use my Honda for commuting 45KM round trip to work in outskirts of Vancouver. The cost for using my Honda is I am my prone to injury should I get in an accident. I drive carefully and responsibly (as do most others) and estimate my risk (cost) to be minimal.

The benefit is decreased fuel and maintenance costs. The Honda is WAY cheaper to operate vs the Volvo. A few contributing factors in my case include expensive Volvo anything in our area + the Accord is older and will not depreciate any more.

My wife uses the Volvo to cart the kids around. For that, I'm happy to spend the extra $$ to have her in a safe vehicle.
--
Norm Cook Vancouver BC; 1989 745T 204,000KM

The 6 cylinder is in the 960 only and the early models did require more frequent timing belt changes. Typically they are 40k intervals once the dampner is installed under the exhaust cam pulley. They are interference engines.

The B234F or the 16 valve as it is more commonly known is what we refer to as as "oil leaking, wallet biting, eye sore". Other than that it is a real nice motor. The Swedes only ran that motor for about 3 years in this market and other than changing the timing belt tensioner on it from manual to hydraulic there were not a lot of differences from early to late. I have worked on plenty of them and while they are not a terrible motor they do suck when compared to the B230F or FT models. They are also interference engines and they take two timing belts when you change them and the balance shaft belt is about $100.00 for the part alone. Do yourself a favor and avoid the 16V motors.

Alot of the late model 940's were turbo charged, B230FT, and are good cars. I would advise getting the latest model 940 you can and have a competent Volvo mechanic do a PRE purchase inspection on it. Turbo or non turbo, either way it is hard to go wrong on a clean late model 940.


Mark

hang on the 234 is b230 with a 16 valve head....so how come its so much worse than the b230???

ok it IS an interferance engine but then again so are most IC engines made...change the belts and its not an issue (or shouldnt be....) come to that a decked b230 with componants a little on the edges of the spec is also interference...and FYI the 850 with basically the same engine as a 960 is 80k change on the belts...

the b230ft is a god awfull beast really..its thursty, fragile, unless you get the post 94 one prone to piston melting - the turbo pipework is extortionatly expensive, the turbo goes 80-150k and cost BIG money, it eats oil...then again it also gets bloody awfull gas milage and eats tyres...technalogically its back in the ark and produces seriously woefull power for a 2.3 turbo...come on a 2.3 turbo SHOULD put out 300-400bhp if it wasnt held back by those 8 valves and dodgy engineering tolarances...

now all that said I OWN a b230ft, but i certainly wouldnt be put off b234, in fact my other car (850 2.5 20 valve) was bought for high miles usage and i SPECIFICALLY avoided a turbo....mainly due to the maintenance costs/problems and gas milage...

".come on a 2.3 turbo SHOULD put out 300-400bhp"

Are you kidding?? Even the new Mitsubishi Evo MR squeezes only 240 horses out of a turbocharged 2.0L mill, and that engine is "hopped up" to the extreme. I doubt that we will see many of those on the road in eight or ten years.

For what it is, the B230FT is a fantastic engine. Admittedly, the numbers do not look impressive on paper, but the 740/940 is a light car (for a mid-sized sedan)and with a manual transmission and 3.73 gears, a 740T runs to 60 in 7.5 seconds. And returns fuel economy in the range of 25mpg on the highway! Show me another car with that level of performance and economy that will soldier on for 250K miles with little more than good, basic maintenance.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!"

http://www.channel4.com/4car/road-tests/driving-impressions-2004/M/mitsubishi/evo-fq340/evo-fq340.html

thats 340 bhp....

250k...some will MOST wont...i speak from experience...

not saying the b230 is a BAD motor...it certianly isnt, but i get the feeling ppl here mythologise it and they shouldent for instance my 2.5 NA 850 has as much power as my wifes 940t....my 1.6 Puegeot engine did 300k and then i only trashed it for a blown head gasket...(and theat engine is NOTORIOUSLY fragile...i had a good one, the GOOD b230's make 250k..many dont)

My 240's B230f has 250K (original) and runs like new - well except for a little more noise!!

Think you are all wrong about this engine. It is damn tough! I've ridden in one with over 400K that ran as well as mine. I know of plenty here in the States that are original and running well with over 500K or some with even more!!

--
90 244DL 1/4 million miles - original engine/drivetrain :)

and i personally know of one at 250k that was on the way, one at 140k that develpoped such serious internal corrosion it had to be scrapped, on with 150k that wouldne hold water...one with 150k that eats oil like it lives in iraq...

i have also known bricks with in excess of 500k miles...like i said some are good, some are bad, most are average...

all of the above in my family, all similarly maintained as far as i know...

look at the tales of people with prv engines at 500k...but MOST were lucky to reach 150...and that a notoriously 'bad' engine

i think there is some serious BS talked about blocks here, basically ANY half decent engine superbly maintained should make huge miles, any engine badly maintained will fail early, 'interference' engines are no different to 'non interference' in this respect....

I changed the T belt on my 245 (B230F) religously and early. Still I had a T belt break while driving the car. No problem. tow to the dealer, 11/2 hrs later back on the road. I have not heard or read of anyone with an interference engine with same result. Also, I know of several folks with Mitsibushis, Chrysler/Dodge, Ford/Merc(the LTD series)and recent Cadies (the Northstar engine) that maintain their cars per dealer instructions, whose cars starting burning oil insidfe 100K miles.

Some engines are built better than others.

'as per dealer instructions' - but after 80k/3 years the dealers dont care....

IMHO if you want to get cars to high milage change the oil every month (dont care what you put in there as long as its the right weight), change the timming belts at 1/2 the recomended, coolant/transmission/brake fluids every 12 months....give them a long run frequently (250+miles) to get the crap out of the engine and dry everything out...NEVER EVER hasve them main dealer serviced (especially volvo's) the main dealers employee kids and pay them peanuts - I know i worked in a ford main dealers for 2 weeks once...its shocking...my experience of volvo main dealers included an 850 sump plug with the wrong type of washer fitted doen up to 3 TIMES the recomended torque (and those sumps are KNOWN for stripping threads - and now i know why!)..bear in mind the guy working in the main dealer doesnt give a crap except doing it in hte time the job card says, the dealer doesnt give a crap cos there are always punters with new cars that HAVE to be dealer serviced for the warrenty...

IMHO do it yourself..then you KNOW its done right...if you cant do it yourself take it to a guy whose earning potential depends on his reputation....and make sure he knows if he pisses you off his reputation is on the line...

Oooo-boy, I take exception to that "basically ANY half decent engine superbly maintained should make huge miles" remark.

Rant follows:

We had an '86 Chrysler minivan (Dodge Caravan) that was a money pit.
2.2L engine, 5-speed. 27 mph highway!
Did all the regular maintenance. Lots of it done in the shop.
Replaced standard tranny once. WHY???
Two clutch replacements by the time we had 170K miles on the clock.

Engine got real bad at 135K, so I had it replaced with a Chrysler-rebuilt one. By the time the clock showed 170K miles the "new" engine was so bad, I got rid of the vehicle. That is, the new eng. lasted only about 35K mi.

Just because some engineers with degrees and licenses designed it, and some businessmen and laborers built it, and a government or two approved it, doesn't guarantee that regular oil and fluid changes will get you any predictable lifespan (or that it will be relatively safe). It is possible to buy poorly made items! And by the same token, it is possible to learn which products are well-made, which is why most of us are here on the brickboard anyhow, if my guess is right.

yep...and it maybe that you just got a bad one...like i said for every average one there has to be a good one and a bad one..the bad one is awfull, the good one is great...perhaps that was just a bad design, perhaps you had a bad shop...

and its seems to methat if you killed two clutches in 170k and two engines...well either the whole engineering was so marginal that its untrue, the maintenance was crap or it was something in the usage pattern..

i was talking in generalities the exception proves the rule....

quoting - - -
yep...and it maybe that you just got a bad one...like i said for every average one there has to be a good one and a bad one..the bad one is awfull, the good one is great...perhaps that was just a bad design, perhaps you had a bad shop...

and its seems to methat if you killed two clutches in 170k and two engines...well either the whole engineering was so marginal that its untrue, the maintenance was crap or it was something in the usage pattern..

i was talking in generalities the exception proves the rule....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If quality control is pretty decent, the range of quality "out the door" won't vary drastically. Not to the point that you have to assume 1 awful, 1 avg, and 1 great for each three sold. We had 2 bad engines in a row. Coincidence??

Of course some would say it was not enough engine for the weight of vehicle. Maybe true. Engineering and marketing should have recognized that before releasing to the public, not consumers after the fact.

We used two different Chrysler shops. Not to mention others for oil changes, mufflers, etc. A variety of techs tended that minivan.

Transmission needed replacement 1/2 way through. When I sold it, it had just gotten the new clutch, and shifting was horrible. I suspected it needed a tranny again. Did not want to wait to find out!

You should havle seen the stupid, sheet-metal emergency brake pedal lever/bracket. Bent after a couple years. After another couple years we had it replaced by the dealer. Guess what?? New lever/bracket was exactly the same. Not beefed up in any way. And I refuse to believe that we were the only owners with bent levers. The thing was so tinny, it should have never gotten of the drawing board that way.

Clutch cable bracket:
Cable runs from pedal, thru firewall, over bracket, then down towards destination.
Bracket is located immediately below windshield wash reservoir.
Gets wet when fluid is spilled over (don't tell me you never did that).
After several years, bracket rusted and weakened, and bent one day when pedal was depressed.
Shop replaced bracket with identical one. No change in materials or finish.
Guaranteed to rust soon again!
Which it did. I replaced it myself that next time.
I bought a couple spare brackets, and painted for preservation for future use.

So, as I wrote earlier, don't assume that just because a bunch of engineers designed it, skilled laborers built it, and a couple governments approved it, that a vehicle is well-designed, well-made, or will serve you well for the long term.

sounds like it was 'built to a price'..probably more tha ccountants fault hen the engineers (never met an engineer yet who doesnt want to build the best they can...)

you can see similar design issues in a brick...

radiator pipeing, door strop in the 850...that stupid drain bolt on the m47 box...take you pick...

sounds like a bad design (they happen)...but i still say that (for the most part) any modern engine SHOULD do 300k if adequately maintained and looked after...but neglect any engine and trash it from cold and you will be lucky to see 100k...

I agree that "SOME" engines (besides Volvo) if properly maintained can attain high mileage. Volvo, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Toyota and Honda are the ones I have direct experience with that have achieved high mileage. I know there is a smattering of other marques, but the above list includes the ones I am aware of..

Sounds like you've had some bad luck with your b230f's. I've had the opposite experience with these engines, as have my friends. Take the time to read some of the 200 series postings here for more info on b230f longevity...

--
90 244DL 1/4 million miles - original engine/drivetrain :)

been here a long while...been around bricks for 37 years....

as i say i talk from personal experience...the b18 wasa greeat engine (in our experience) the b230 not so great (still good just not great)..

as i say im not actually knowing the engine I just think a little perspective needs injecting...

say it very quietly round here but the white block engines are geting right up there withe the b230's in milage etc...and eeryone says they are CRAP

The white blocks are getting up there in mileage. From what I've heard, they do last if taken care. Good engine. Course along the way you'll replace a couple of rear main seals...

The engines aren't the problem with the 850's. All I need to do is peruse the 850 forum for the list of problems. I do acknowledge that most of the problems are with the early ones. If I bought one it would be a 96, 97 or perhaps an s70 or v70...

I've seen your posts before, got to ask if you dislike your b230f's so much why don't you sell them and buy something else? I would....

--
90 244DL 1/4 million miles - original engine/drivetrain :)

I actually have an 850, and i have to say (so far) its been trouble free apart from its apetite for brake disks and tyres (which it eats at a rate, but then again it really handles, goes and stops...so its GOING to eat them!)

Having worked on 144's, 245's, 744's. 745's and 945's i would also say the buid and fit quality is slightly better on the 850....maybe just on mine, maybe i just got a good one....its only got 85k on it so far so time will tell...

You misread my posts, its NOT that I dislike b230f's. the fact i still have one and look after a couple of others should tell you that, its that i dislike some of the BS that seems to float around here that they all run for 500k miles with no more maintenance that checking the oil...they dont, its a fact they just dont..

IF you get a good one, and it well looked after AND your prepaired to put the time and money in you CAN get very high miles...but certainly its not the rule its the exception...

the people on here are self selecting to being prepaired to do it...hence quite a few people have high miles examples, but similarly go through the posts and see the number of 100-150k engines with issues (issues that would lead a lot of those same people who will rebuild a b230f from scratch at 250k to say 'its white block - scrap it' if a white block had the same issues at half the milage) - you yourself have just sort of proved the point with the comment about white block rear seals...at 250k it would not be uncommon on a b230 to have replaced the rear, certainly the fronts...yet you mention the 850 rear...

the POINT is not the quality of the engine (like i say i have one)...but the mythology that floats around...its an engine..it was designed by engineers..built by a factory...like all such devices you get saweat ones, you get dogs and most fall somewhere in the middle, basic laws of physics and production...

"hang on the 234 is b230 with a 16 valve head....so how come its so much worse than the b230???"

I did not build the thing I just have to service them and pick up the pieces when they scatter. You may want to believe that the head is the only difference but you are woefully mistaken. Let me ask you this, when was the last time the bolt for your oil pump pulley sheared off and scattered your B230 motor?

"ok it IS an interferance engine but then again so are most IC engines made...change the belts and its not an issue (or shouldnt be....) come to that a decked b230 with componants a little on the edges of the spec is also interference...and FYI the 850 with basically the same engine as a 960 is 80k change on the belts"

Let me see, you just spent in the area of $1500.00 changing out all of the tensioners, engine seals, and resealing the cam carrier on your oil leaking pig of an engine. You even did it right on time and that pesky little oil pump bolt sheared or the balance shaft idler bearing came apart and now the engine is scattered. Not just a what if, I've seen it more than once. The 850 may have a similar engine, but the belt change on MOST of them is 70k, not 80k. We are talking about stock motors here not something some ricky racer has modified beyond spec.

"the b230ft is a god awfull beast really..its thursty, fragile, unless you get the post 94 one prone to piston melting - the turbo pipework is extortionatly expensive, the turbo goes 80-150k and cost BIG money, it eats oil...then again it also gets bloody awfull gas milage and eats tyres...technalogically its back in the ark and produces seriously woefull power for a 2.3 turbo...come on a 2.3 turbo SHOULD put out 300-400bhp if it wasnt held back by those 8 valves and dodgy engineering tolarances..."

Providing you service the engine and maintain it properly there is no reason it will not do 300K with all of the original equipment. Again, not some internet myth, I've seen it time and time again and have numerous examples on the road of vehicles that I have personally serviced from the day they rolled off of the truck. I am not sure what you are basing your experience on but I base mine on just that, real world experience.

"Providing you service the engine and maintain it properly there is no reason it will not do 300K with all of the original equipment. Again, not some internet myth, I've seen it time and time again and have numerous examples on the road of vehicles that I have personally serviced from the day they rolled off of the truck. I am not sure what you are basing your experience on but I base mine on just that, real world experience. "

so are mine...we have owned MANY volvo's and the only ones to get past 250k were b21's...


"I did not build the thing I just have to service them and pick up the pieces when they scatter. You may want to believe that the head is the only difference but you are woefully mistaken. Let me ask you this, when was the last time the bolt for your oil pump pulley sheared off and scattered your B230 motor?"

never....and they cant have been very well serviced if they were in peices..that says the timing belt went...and yess i have EXTENSIVE experience of OHC interference engiens with excess of 200k on them...

"Let me see, you just spent in the area of $1500.00 changing out all of the tensioners, engine seals, and resealing the cam carrier on your oil leaking pig of an engine" verse new turbo's, front seals, oil coolers (you would think they would havethought of the galvanic corrosion...)

the POINT here is lets not make the b230 a mythical engine it simply ISNT..but peopel do fixz them...there seems to be an undue fear of the b234..people panic about interference engines..then talk about how good japanese engiens are...almost all of which are interfernece...

BTW be very carefull on quoting cambelt and oil change intervals...ite depends on teritory for hte same car (why??), eg i nthe uk a b230ft oil change is 6k. a 5254 is 12k on the oil and 80 k or 8 years on the belts...and if your charge 1500 for it you were well and truly ripped...

Thanks, Rule, for your experienced and thoughtful input.

Ja, the turbo is a good engine if well cared for.
For my purposes, too costly for gas, and we have to admit it can be tricky trying to find one with a good history.

If I buy another Volvo, it'll be another basic 2.3L engine with automatic.
I've had great history with the ones we've owned.

Re. my gfuel comment, remember I'm driving about 45K mi. yearly. 21-24 mpg on 87 octane is acceptable to me - though not ideal. 89 or 91 octane and possibly less mpg would not be good in my case. The 21-22 is with four snow tires, 24 is with regular tires and good weather. Sometimes close to 25. Auto tranny.

Thanks -
You've confirmed my feelings re. the turbo - occasional high maintenance costs, high fuel cost, thus not the reliability champ we love.

Re. the 16-valve, I've heard from more than one working mechanic to avoid it.
Also heard that they used the lessons learned for the 5-cyl.
So yes, the 5-cyl is in many ways the same, and also the same as the 6-cyl, but it seems the 5-cyl has the solutions to the issues that plagued both of its progeny, and apparently even the latest and best of its progeny (the 4-cyl 16-V and the 6 cyl) did not have those issues resolved.

I did hear that there were lots of update-fixes available to the 16V. That is, if you owned one and kept taking it in to the dealer. Dunno who paid for the work. But apparently still not worth looking for and buying.

I did see and test drive a 740 wagon w/16V that had some upgrades. I noted radiator hoses with big arrows on them indicating coolant flow direction - direct opposite to the standard direction! Into the radiator from the exhaust side of block, and out the radiator to the intake side. I believe the thermostat was in its usual place, receiving flow in the reverse direction. Also had R134 (R134A??) A/C refrigerant.

Unfortunately the tranny grunted and growled when put into gear, with rotten tranny fluid on the dipstick. That did it for me.

hang on the 234 is b230 with a 16 valve head....so how come its so much worse than the b230???

ok it IS an interferance engine but then again so are most IC engines made...change the belts and its not an issue (or shouldnt be....) come to that a decked b230 with componants a little on the edges of the spec is also interference...and FYI the 850 with basically the same engine as a 960 is 80k change on the belts...

the b230ft is a god awfull beast really..its thursty, fragile, unless you get the post 94 one prone to piston melting - the turbo pipework is extortionatly expensive, the turbo goes 80-150k and cost BIG money, it eats oil...then again it also gets bloody awfull gas milage and eats tyres...technalogically its back in the ark and produces seriously woefull power for a 2.3 turbo...come on a 2.3 turbo SHOULD put out 300-400bhp if it wasnt held back by those 8 valves and dodgy engineering tolarances...

now all that said I OWN a b230ft, but i certainly wouldnt be put off b234, in fact my other car (850 2.5 20 valve) was bought for high miles usage and i SPECIFICALLY avoided a turbo....mainly due to the maintenance costs/problems and gas milage...

I have a 91 SE (turbo), if gas mileage is the name of the game, stay away from the turbo. I get about 24 mpg on the highway, and if I don't use premium fuel, the performance is horrible. My sister has a 940 sedan and she gets about 29 miles/gallon. My engine, however is strong, running 185k without a problem. Just make sure that the car has been taken care of and that you yourself wil have time to do it / get it done.