300TD or Volvo 940 wagon?
 

I've owned my 240D for close to 12 years, and have nothing bad to say about it. It's been cheap to maintain and drive, and still looks great (no rust, since I don't drive it in the winter). I need a year-round car and would like a station wagon (sooo practical). I used to own a 92 Volvo 240 wagon for 3-4 years which was great but was getting pretty worn out so I got rid of it. Picked up a Camry wagon which served me well for 2-3 years until the head gasket and brake lines went (damn). Got rid of it. Now I'm looking for a wagon again, and hopefully one I can keep and maintain for many years.

A couple months ago, I saw a local '83 300TD for sale for $4K firm (I think it's still available). 250k miles, rebuilt engine and trans and front end, not much rust (been winter stored most of its life), interior is worn (family car, same owner since 84), engine seals leak oil. My 240D is in much nicer shape, but it's not a TD, so I was tempted.

Recently someone has offered to sell me a very nice Volvo 940 rwd wagon (auto, no turbo, great body and interior) with only 60,000 miles for $5K. Much as I'd like to own a TD, I think the 940 will be a bigger bang for the buck, and provide more trouble-free driving given low mileage and condition. Both are great cars, but I can only have one, and am leaning to the Volvo.

Any thoughts?

I'd get the 940. It will get pretty close to the same fuel economy, and it's an excellent and very durable car. The only reason to prefer the 300TD would be if you wanted to run veggie oil in it or just couldn't live without having that hood star in view. ;)

Never drove a 940. Drove Volvo 240's for about 20 years on and off. Would take a clean W123 diesel over a like volvo 240 any day. All the volvo 240's I drove felt like such plodders in comparison.

You may be looking at $$ if you have to do the rear seal and don't DIY.

never drove a 940 either, but owned an 88 Volvo 740 5-speed wagon for 6 or so years. Id take the volvo if its anything like the earlier 740. MB wagon would be nice, but personally I wouldn't want to deal with the SLS suspension through corrosive winter environments, that alone would put me in the volvo.

Owned a 300TD that had nearly every part of the SLS destroyed by corrosion. Regular springs are just way less complex. Don't think I ever had a single occasion to service the rear suspension on my 740, despite the rust getting pretty bad after a while.

Only issue was on that wagon, the fuel pump and filter are underneath kind of exposed under the rear passenger seat. Easier to service, but pretty susceptible to corrosion. Don't know about the 940.

Is a Diesel viable in winter where you are? The Volvo might be the better choice just because it'll start.

Sixto
87 300D

i've owned a non-turbo 940 and it was horribly slow - i would never buy one again. i also owned a volvo 760 turbo wagon - now that was fantastic. the 300TD isn't "fast" but it's got the power/torque to really be functional - i.e. hauling gear, canoe on top & family inside, towing. imho the build quality of the MB far exceeds the Volvo.

even if you don't speak German this video Mercedes Benz E-class Estate S123 Development - YouTube is a fun look at the design and utility of the 300TD.

That 940 can't be any slower than my automatic 240D.
If you're OK with the horsepower, go for the Volvo. 60k vs 250K!
No SLS, or other potential high-mile headaches like how long will the TD's automatic, vacuum-pump or timing-chain last. Unless that TD has significant maintenance records....

Happy Motoring, Mark

Daughter number 1 drives a 300d daughter number 2 drives a volvo 740 turbo 5 speed both cars 250K miles +. I have a more romantic attachment to the benz but the I have to say in comparison:

• MPG equal
• acceleration volvo way faster
• upkeep volvo has required very little benz seems like constant little things like vacuum lines.
• price of unleaded vs diesel advantage volvo
• safety equal
• comfort and build quality the benz

just my 2 cents

Thanks for all the great thoughts!!

The 940 is a bit more comfortable version of the 240/740. Same great engine and transmission, rwd, bit nicer interior than the more spartan 240. Some say it's the last of the great RWD volvos (they made 940's until 1995 I believe). I know they are plodders without the turbo, but have reputation for being bulletproof and reasonably easy to maintain, with knowledge of their few idiosyncracies. I learned on the Volvo 240 (bosch fuel injection, etc.), and could readily maintain this 940 for many many years, since it's barely broken in.

As someone said, the Volvo is better designed for winter, and indeed one reason I don't drive my 240D in the winter is that I prefer an easier-starting gas engine up here in the Great White North. The Volvo trunks are the most spacious of any station wagon, probably even more than the TD, though it might be close.

I suppose the 93 940 has a few more safety features than the 83 TD, so that might be a plus. The interior on it looked excellent, compared to the somewhat beatup interior of the TD.

All in all, consensus seems to be the 940 (hard to compare 60 vs 250k miles!). Hopefully the seller will come through with it (he just showed me the car and said he would fix a few cosmetic things before he's ready to sell in a month). I have fondness for the older Volvos, so would be kind of nice to own one of each (W123 and x40 Volvo).

Thanks again, I always respect the balanced opinion of people on this forum! Cheers.

ok, you've GOTTA give it more than one day to glean opinions!

the volvo has that flat rear end, so more LARGE cargo room, but the MB has all the split and fold down seats, and that AWESOME SLS. I'm not sure how cold it gets where you are though. below -20F and Diesel is a real bear to deal with. PERFECT glow system, and good antigel help immeasurably, but gas is simpler to be sure.
I'm sold on the MB wagons, I've never been stranded in one, though, I really baby my cars, and give them everything they need at the slightest wimpering.
the 83 would be a turbo Diesel, so power should not be an issue.
that said, 4K for a wagon in rough shape does sound pricey... I've gotten all my wagons for under 3K, and I have 2 87's!

I was a Volvo stalwart for years. Here's my $0.02:

I would highly recommend a non-turbo 940, however at that price it needs be nearly perfect and needing nothing.

They aren't worth that much around here. If you don't like it a month from now, you'll be happy if you get $2,500. If it's worth it to you, fine, I get that, but just be forewarned....

Expensive bits: check whether it has Nivomat self-levelling rear shocks. Some do, some do not. Nivomats are more expensive to replace than it is to fix SLS on a 300td. Engine control computers I hear are now outrageously pricey and sometimes go as the car gets older. Mass air sensors used to be expensive as well and not long-lived (3-4 yrs). If it has a power seat make sure the controls work, they aren't reliable.

Should be 8-valve head, if I recall the model lineup back then. If it's 16-valve, then frequent belt changes as the 16-valve engines are interference and I have heard stories of the belts snapping inside the service interval.

A non-turbo 940 is the last 'real' Volvo. Good luck with it.

I might have to lean toward the 940
 

Just for the difference in mileage, but it is a high asking price. I have had the 2, 7, and 9 series in wagon and sedans over the last 20+ years, and the 940 wagon of the early 90's, particularly 93-95, is the sweet spot for the old Volvos. Here is a maintenance list for that series:

Volvo Maintenance Hints for 7xx/9xx/90

I also have a few contacts for inexpensive parts still. They are stateside, but might be a good source for you if you go the Volvo route.

Yeah, I didn't mean to state that my decision is made (the Volvo is after all not presently available to buy), but I am certainly leaning that way. As you say, the TD has some nice features (folding seats, flexible cargo arrangement). Seems that people see the SLS in different perspectives, for some it's a plus, for others it's a negative. Yes, it gets cold up here for some weeks in the winter, so starting a diesel would be an issue.

About price, I know everyone says that they have gotten cars for significantly cheaper than what I seem to come across. Maybe the micro-market here is different, supply and demand being what it is. I scan the local markets continuously (am not prepared to travel long-distance to acquire a used car!), and the good ones for a good price go really quick. I mean, within 24 hours. A car is worth what someone feels it's worth, and acquisition price is obviously only one part of the equation, the majority of the costs come post-purchase and through the remaining lifecycle. So yeah, I wish I could acquire a nice rust-free, good-condition TD for less than $3K but that's impossible in my neck of the woods.

Thanks for the tip about the Nivomat shocks, I'll pay particular attention to that, and the other things you noted. I know from my previous 240 volvo that the air sensor can be pricey and problematic if it goes. This 940 is an 8 valve engine so timing belt is not critical issue.

About worth, I hear you and wish I could find a 60,000 mile rust-free 940 wagon for $2500, but in my honest opinion, those are impossible to find locally. Anything around the 1500-2500 range is either high mileage or high wear. Still, I do find the $5K asking price a bit high, and would try to work that down a bit. And at that price, I agree with you that it would have to be darn near perfect and everything works (low mileage being only one part of the equation leading to a good car). I saw it quickly parked in a driveway and heard the engine run, and that's about it. I will obviously look it MUCH more carefully and also have my mechanic give a clean bill of health before dropping serious coin on this car, and assuming long-term ownership responsibilities for it (care and maintenance, repairs, insurance, etc.).

Having said all that: in my opinion there are not in my geographical area that many good, solid, flexible, dependable RWD wagons left, and looking at what else one can get in more modern cars on the used market for a similar price (10 year old CRV's, 5-7 year old Cavaliers and Hyundais, and various other crap), $4-5K is not a huge amount of money, in my opinion, for two good specimens from some of the last great cars from two notable makers (Volvo and Mercedes). ;)

Thanks for the link, I've been using brickboard for some years (proved very useful for my 240 wagon) and it's a great source of info for sure. As I said in another response, I also find the price a bit on the high side, unless this car is cherry where it's visible and where it isn't... My GF thinks I'm crazy to be chasing down 20 year old cars, but I firmly believe that those old W123's, Volvo 240/740/940's had lasting qualities that one just doesn't find in more modern models. Longevity, maintainability, simplicity, cost of ownership, are all important factors in my vehicle choices. That usually leads me to older cars (my 96 Dodge 12 valve Cummins, 82 Benz sedan, being two examples of this).

Maybe I've been going about this the wrong way my whole life, and like the vast majority of folks, should be buying new or nearly new cars, keeping them 8-10 years, then buying another new one. But I suppose I'm wired the way I am and hold fast to my beliefs that newer is not necessarily better and certainly not cheaper. In these days of economic uncertainty, solid older cars make a lot of sense to me. I know a lot of you also feel this way, which is one reason I like to hang around this forum (and similar ones for older Volvos etc.).

Cheers!