|
With the exception of the P1800, I have owned at least one example of each of the RWD models. I find your evaluation of them to be well thought out, though biased in favor of the earlier cars. Here are my comments, based on actual experience:
122--You are mostly right on with this one. However, the rubber floor mats are a big minus as they trap moisture and make the floor rot out. With the exception of the 68 (and later, not imported to the US) models, these cars lack important safety features such as dual circuit brakes, headrests, collapsible steering column. Wagons get poor mileage, due to an absurdly short rear axle ratio (difficult to change to a more sensible one) Also avoid automatics, as they are difficult to convert to manual transmission, due to the tunnel being the wrong shape.
140--Wonderful cars, but very rare now. Most of them were used up and thrown away. Good survivors are hard to find. The second generation cars (71-72) are the best, particularly if they have fuel injection. Early ones with the B18 are underpowered and have smaller brakes and suspension components, later cars have an ugly dashboard (similar to an early 240, but less attractive) and are more complex and difficult to work on. This is particularly true of 74 models.
240--These are starting to be considered classics now, and prices are on the increase, particularly for clean late models. There are several generations of the 240, each with its own quirks. 75s still have the old B20 engine. 76-79 have a B21 with CIS fuel injection, which is not electronic, and is very durable and reliable, though expensive to fix if it does go wrong. 80-85 cars have four square headlights and various different types of fuel injection and ignition systems. The bad news is that the original wiring harnesses are prone to deterioration, particularly under the hood, which sent many otherwise perfectly good cars to the junkyard before their time. 86 and up are the definitive 240. The first couple years also have wiring problems, which can be fixed by replacing the harness---a big job, but by no means impossible. 88 is considered by many to be the best year of all. If you want an air bag, 90 and later models have them, and ABS became available in 91. For the most part, later 240s are quite straightforward and easy to work on (though not necessarily to diagnose) with the heater fan being the main exception.
740--roomier, more comfortable, better ride and handling than the 240, but much less appealing to look at. I would hardly call them modern in appearance any more--their severe, architectural lines (especially on the original type) contrast sharply with all the new jellybean shapes out there. Nobody seems to want these cars, and, like with 140s 20 years ago, they are being used up and thrown away. This is where you are likely to find the best value for your money, as really nice low mileage examples can still occasionally be found, usually for next to nothing. Early (up to mid 87) cars have the same wiring problems as 240s of that era, later models are a better choice. The 740 is one of the easiest cars there is to work on, except for the heater core, which is an absolute nightmare to replace. Though the interior trim and electrical system are a lot more elaborate, the mechanical components are identical to those of a 240 of the same year, and most repairs can be done with everyday hand tools. Again, you have a choice of air bag and/or ABS, depending if you want them or not. I have seen cars with neither, one or the other, and both. The headliners on the 7 series cars are prone to falling down. There is no good way to fix this, the only cure is replacement, which is a big job, especially if the car has a sunroof. The 940 is basically a continuation of the 740, with revised rear body styling on the sedans, and very few changes on the wagons.
Now, for a brief overview of some of the components of these cars:
Engines--all models up to and including 1975 have either a B18 (up to 68) or a B20 (69+) These engines are pretty much interchangeable, at least if you are putting a newer engine in an older car. They are very sturdy, but do have a couple of issues. Pre-74 examples did not have hardened valve seats, which are required for prolonged operation on unleaded gas. A machine shop can install them for $200-300. They are also prone to rapid cam/lifter wear, particularly on later B20s with big valves. Modern motor oil with reduced levels of zinc additives further contribute to this problem. SU carbs are simple and straightforward (though often found with worn out throttle shafts, which makes them impossible to tune properly) Strombergs are troublesome, D-jetronic fuel injection (71-73) can be finnicky but is the best of all when its working right, CIS (74-75) is very reliable but expensive to fix if it does develop problems.
Starting in 1976, Volvo went to an OHC engine with a timing belt. This is not a reason for concern, as US models are not an interference design, meaning that if the belt breaks, no damage occurs. Put a new belt on and it works again. Also, there is enough room under the hood, so changing the belt is only a couple hours work---you don't even have to remove the radiator. There are three types of OHC engine---B21, B23, and B230. They are all very similar, and all extremely durable. From 85 to mid-88, the B230 was a "low-friction" design, with a reduced size crankshaft. These don't last as long as earlier and later engines---they are good for "only" 250-300K miles before they need a rebuild. The fuel injection systems used on these engines are, as such things go, quite simple and straightforward. Apart from having a catalytic converter and a carbon canister, there aren't any "emission controls" to speak of, with the exception of a few late models that have EGR.
Turbos--Starting in 1981, Volvos were available with a turbo. For the most part, they do not represent a reliability issue, though they do benefit from frequent oil changes. There is, of course, a tradeoff between the added power and decreased gas mileage, so unless you really want to go fast, you should probably stick with a standard engine.
Engines to avoid--The only 4 cylinder engine you should stay away from is the B234F, which is found in some 89-90 740s and 91-92 940s. This is a 16 valve version of the B230, which requires frequent timing belt changes to avoid self-destruction, as it is an interference design. You also don't want any of the V6s. Though the last version (B280F--89 and up) is much improved, the older ones are truly awful. Nor do you want a 960, as these have the same timing belt issues as the B234F, among other problems.
Transmissions---There were three choices on the early models: M40 4 speed, M41 4 speed + OD, and BW35 3 speed automatic. Of these, the M41 is the one to have, as the extra gear really helps with gas mileage, and keeping the noise level down at highway speeds. The overdrive unit itself is nothing to be afraid of---they rarely give trouble. The BW35 is fairly durable, but that is about the only good thing about it---it is sluggish and no fun to drive, and cuts into gas mileage fairly badly. In 1976, with the OHC engine, came two new manual transmissions, the M45 4 speed, and the M46, with OD. Again, the OD is the one to have. At some point in the early 80s, the BW35 was replaced by the AW70 series of automatic transmissions. These are a big improvement, due to having an additional gear. They are still not exactly what you would call sporty to drive, nor do they get great gas mileage, but they are just about indestructible, the only issues being the solenoid for 4th (OD) gear and tailshaft bushing wear at high mileages. Some early 740s had a ZF 4HP22 4 speed automatic, which is much nicer to drive but can be ruined by simply revving the engine in neutral. As you might imagine, these are pretty rare now. Finally, there is the M47, a true 5 speed. You might think that this is the ultimate choice, but that is not the case. The M46 is stronger and more durable, which is why it remained in production for many years after the introduction of the M47, which was inadequate for use with the more powerful turbo engines. This is not to imply that the M47 is no good---they will do just fine if you don't abuse them and make sure to keep them full of oil. Note that, if you want a manual transmission, they are a lot easier to find in a 240. They were less than 10% of 740 production. It is possible to convert one, but it's a lot of work.
Air conditioning---The earliest models you are likely to find with functional A/C are 240s. Of these, only the latest ones, which were designed for R134a, are really good. The R12 systems are marginal when converted, particularly in wagons. The 740 A/C is somewhat better.
Sunroof---In my opinion, these are best avoided. They add weight, rarely work all that well, and are prone to leaking. 122s and 140s with sunroofs are extremely rare. 240 sedans sometimes had them, but no wagons did, as original equipment. Most 740s have a sunroof---one without is a rare treasure. On the 740, the roof can be either hand cranked or electric. These are identical except for the drive mechanism, which is interchangeable.
Rust---All the early cars rust, severely in some cases. In the mid to late 80s, major improvements were made in the rustproofing of the 240 series, making them almost as good as the 7s, which don't seem to rust at all, unless you live in the far north.
Gas mileage---Almost any 4 cylinder non turbo Volvo with a manual transmission should get between 25 and 30 MPG if it is in good condition and you drive reasonably. Automatics and Turbos will be somewhere in the low 20s, and automatic Turbos can go as low as the high teens, particularly if you like to put your right foot down.
To sum up, if you really want a 122 or 140, they are still suitable as daily drivers, but only if you are prepared to do just about all of the repairs (which they will need more frequently than newer models) yourself, and don't mind having to track down parts, which are generally available, but not always easy to find. The biggest thing to watch out for on these cars is rust---anything else can be fixed fairly easily, though interior trim can be very hard to come by. A 240, particularly a later one, is a better choice, as they are extremely reliable, once you've caught up with all of the deferred maintenance and neglect that most of them seem to have suffered, and not that much more difficult to work on than the 122/140. If you do all of your own work on one of these, it can have perhaps the lowest operating cost of any car on the road. Much the same is true of the 740. The choice between these two is more a matter of personal preference than that one is clearly "better" than the other. Make sure to drive at least one of each before you decide. Either one is an excellent vehicle, assuming you get a good example to start with.
|
