I saw an '86 Volvo 240DL for sale. Are these cars a good buy? Are they as well made as a Mercedes?

Whatever repsonses you'll get here, you'll get the exact opposites at the brickboard. They seem to be pretty evenly matched.

Here is a recent discussion about it

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?threadid=39314&highlight=volvo+240

Like any other car, the answer depends in part on how well it has been maintained and what you want it for.

My daily driver is a 1983 240DL with 202+++ miles and stick shift. It runs as well as the day it was new (on synthetics), and I've kept after the rust gremlins over the years; so, it looks great, too. I really like the car, but there are times that I wished I had bought a Benz of the same vintage (the amenities and smoother ride would have been nice; the 240 Benzes of the '80's are also indestuctible).

I also enjoy driving the 1995 E320, though. Very different cars. Whereas the Benz is king of the highway, the Volvo is a fun car in which to scoot around town.

To each, his (or her) own.

Ron
'95 E320

Volvo's are very good and cheap cars. The 240 is one of the strongest engines you will find. You can let it jump timing and it wont hurt a thing. Just think of the tractor engines that they used to build along time ago and you have the 240. Its a very simple car and engine.

__________________
euro 287
Mercedes Technician 7 Years (retired to Hyundai)
2000 Dodge Durango
98 Mazda truck

I have an '83 Volvo 245 GL. It's silver and has black leather, power everything (except the mirrors), and nice stock alloys. However, it's a very simple car and dead reliable. Changing oil is a cinch on this car, and my Volvo is the first car that I have ever worked on by myself. I've done numerous oil changes, a tune-up, and the usual home Volvo mechanic's delight: duct-tape repairs. For a four banger, its engine is pretty strong and has sufficient power to escort 5 passengers and stuff that every Volvo driver seems to lug around with relative ease. (My wagon bay is always clean--I'm the oddball here it seems.) My wagon has taken a lot of punishment, and it is amazing how much flogging these cars can take! You can get most parts at Pep Boys. Really, a Volvo 240 is a true DIY type of car. A thing to watch out for is the O/D if this car has one. O/Ds seem to go out on Volvos that have them. Also, much of the interior is held together by plastic thingys that can come loose over time or from constant vibrations. They can also break if you're not careful. Volvo door handles are weird, so you may need to teach your passengers how to use them for exiting. Hmmm, in general, Volvos are weird cars with their own quarks--but you'll grow to love them!

Anyhow, since I'm here, let me rant and rave a little about my Volvo I love it! I wouldn't trade anything for it. I originally bought this car because I needed (but perhaps wanted) a beater so that I could protect my pristine baby Benz from the evil door dingers, reckless drivers, inconsiderate people, and the wear-and-tear gremlins that are out there. I also wanted an errand/run-about/project/tinkering type of car, something that I could learn something about cars from. But mainly, it would be a beater, a workhorse, a car that I didn't have to stress over or care about. Well, being the person that I am, I soon became obsessed with keeping the car clean that I began to treat it like my Benz. Eating inside was soon limited, passengers had to tap their feet before entering, carpets were heavily covered with mats when ferrying more than one person, warning passengers not to slam the door, putting a sunshade up when parked in the sun, etc. I knew this car was no longer a beater when I began to actually worry about door dings! When I bought this car, it had a big dent on the driver-side rear panel, a few minor dings, scratches, and rust spots here and there, and blotchy paint (Volvo's environmentally safe paint didn't last long). They're all still there But all that is not going to prevent me from trying to protect her from getting new dings and scratches. I can usually tell whenever there is a new ding or scratch! Sometimes I will actually drive around and look for a safe place to park. I don't have that "drive it to the ground" mentality about this car anymore. But still, this car makes me drive like a maniac sometimes. It's a fun car and has a lot of character. I have never felt embarrassed in it (some of my passengers sometimes wish that I would drive the Benz). After parking it, I sometimes stop, turn around and admire it. I think the fact that many people, especially my peers, find the 240 to be ugly and so uncool makes it even more attractive to me. Yeah, I can't really call it a beater (such a degrading word for such a beautiful car), but it is my work car. When I bought the 245, I was already a Volvo nut, but I've become a bigger nut now since owning it. I really love Volvos. *okay, breathe in, breathe out*

The 240 is a really safe and reliable car. It's solidly built with Swedish steel. The car is vault-like, and most of my friends say they feel safe in my car. Look for rust, O/D, vacuum hoses, and the usual mechanical parts. If the car checks out fine, I would recommend it. The 86+ 240s have the big headlights that I think look much better than the quad lights that are on the older 240s.

My current ride is an '86 300E which i have owned for just over 2 years. Prior to it, I drove an 87 Volvo 240. I sold the 240 to a relative due to a small electrical mishap (long story-involves smoke and fire).

Here's my take on this. The 300E is a fantastic ride, smooth, comfortable, relatively powerful. Really fun to drive. Maintainance costs for the DIY are probably above average but not outragous. With good manuals, there isn't much a motivated DIY can't handle. I will drive the 300E until it rusts out on me or is totaled.

If my 300E needs burial, what will I replace it with? A late 80s or early 90s Volvo 240 5spd. No question. The merits discussed above are well noted. They are great long-term cars. The one I sold now has over 300K miles. Starts and runs very well. Why would I choose a 240 over my 300E? I can't exactly figure this one out. The 300E's power and refinement make it a real pleasure, but for a long-term care free experience, I'd have to take the Volvo. Maybe the Benz has not grown on me yet like the Volvo did.


Blake
'86 300E
255,000 miles

I have owned 5 Volvos. 2 were 700 series(1 4 cyl and 1 6 cyl). 1 240 and 2 70 series. They have all been great cars. The best one was the 87' 760gle with a rare V-6. This is the worst model they made yet it was the best out of all 5 of the ones I owned!

That V-6 was also in the Peugeot 505 V-6 and the Eagle Premier V-6. Remember those!? Probably not! Underated engine big time.

My parents bought the V-6 new and I inherited it over time. It had 198k on it when I sold it in 97'. Only had oil seals and 2 water pumps replaced. No timing belt. I guess it had a chain and it was never replaced. It was the only car other than a MB that had a drivers airbag! I remember bragging about it when I was 15! We had the only airbag on the block. WOW! The 760 V-6, 760 Turbo and 780 coupe were the only models they put an airbag in back then. I see it every other day at the jail. I sold it to a cop. He said it has almost 300k on it now and few problems. Great car!

I would personally buy a 90-93' 240 with the 4 cyl. These models have a drivers airbag. It is easy to work on and very, very simple. Look under the hood of one sometime. I think you could climb in the engine bay and work on it with your feet on the ground. I saw a 93' 240 Classic for sale last year with 6k miles on it for $13k. Elderly owned. I wish I had bought that car because those are the best of the best! Good Luck

__________________
Current stable......
17' Rogue SV 70k
11’ Saab 9-5 NG 94k
10’ e550 4matic 185k

sold
02' e320 210k
00' e430 167k
01' e320 171k (regret sale)
91' 300d 2.5t 300k (sold to ecoofidaho)
79' 240d 177k (old yellow my avatar)
87' 300d 169k (junk but fast)
85' 300tdt 261k (RBM parts delivery)
85' 300dt 68k (one owner cream puff)
82' 240d 250k
84' 300dt 198k (sold to diesel don)
91' 190e 2.3 61k
88' 260e 140k

To tell you the truth I hate Volvos. I hate how everyone thinks Volvos are so reliable and great, and think Benzes are unreliable and high maintenance. Of the two old Volvos Ive been in contact with, both are garbage. My friend has a 240DL sedan, had to have the head gaskets replaced at 150K miles, replaced the oil pump and fuel pump. Also, have to love early electronics in these cars. The MAF (Master Air Flow) went out on his, and he also had to replace the engine computer. Oddly enough, my aunt's 240GL of the same yera (1986) had to have the head rebuilt and also replaced the MAF and engine computer. The guy up the road from may hes a 740 and says "I have 356,000 miles on my 740" If I remember, correctly, it had been out many times for "routine maintenance" (rebuilt uppper halfe, lower half installation.) Volvos are overated! Have to love those rubber timing belts tha you replace every 60K too...

Well guess what! If those timing belts do break, the Volvo 4-cylinder engine won't get trashed. It'll just stop running. Gotta love non-interference engines.

My family has had four Volvos. The first two (240 series) had hard miles on them and had lots of driveline problems (u-joints, etc). Nothing like a head gasket going though. The latter two (740, 940, both in my sig) are awesome except for a few electrical problems. Far less repair cost between the two of them than with the 380SE.

BTW, this is from someone with an '87 740 Turbo with 176K (now) on its original head gasket. Do the bloody maintenance and don't start out with an abused car and a Volvo will be very reliable.


-Sam

I've had 12 Volvos (still have 2) and I've had a ton of other makes, incl. 2 MB's. I love the Volvo...its simplicity is incredible. There is a reason why its a Volvo that holds the world's record on mileage...over 2 million. These cars can't be killed.

Engine was rebuilt at 675,000 and 1,500,000 miles, has been in 10 accidents etc. Car was practically rebuilt. Direct drive transmission must have been replaced many times. If I remember correctly, a 180D Mercedes went 900K without a rebuild, and if the owner had the engine rebuilt another time, it would have went just as long. I dont see many Volvo 240DL taxis in Europe as opposed to Benz 240D's and 300D's and Td's taxis in Europe, so that may tell you something....

Actually, your information is wrong, if this is the car that you're talking about. Original engine and tranny. Haha.

http://www.vcoa.org/irv_o_meter.shtml

A Volvo 240DL may not have the ultimate durability of a 220D or 240D, but it accelerates much better, lasts nearly as long, and I'm willing to bet that Volvo parts are cheaper on average than MB parts.

-Sam

Some info on the Volvo V-8 conversion:

http://www.jagsthatrun.com/Pages/Volvo_200_V-8.html

From the site:

We purchased a diesel Volvo with the sole interest of installing a V-8 for this conversion manual.

Our goal was to do an engine swap that was repeatable, and functional. The parts for the swap had to be easy to make and/or readily available. And we didn't want to change the feel of the car.

This Volvo originally had a diesel engine and an automatic transmission. It had about 110,000 miles and the engine was worn out and would not start in cold weather. The Volvo diesel engine was actually built by Volkswagen and was never noted for its durability.

The nice part about this car is that it is complete, and it is unmodified. The diesel Volvo has the advantages of coming with suspension and brake components that are compatible with the V-8 because the diesel engine is fairly heavy. The disadvantages of the diesel car are that the fuel system, and the exhaust system (heat shields) have to be changed for the gas engine. The electrical system is also a bit more work to hook up, compared to a gas car.

As you can see in the above photo, the V-8 installation looks nearly stock. The engine is a 305 throttle-body-injected V-8 from a 1991 Camaro. Almost all of the parts are available from Volvo or Chevrolet. This is what makes the engine swap so repeatable, and so stock looking.

In this photo, the battery had been relocated to the passenger's side to improve balance, and to allow using the battery cables that came with the 1991 Camaro engine. Later, the battery was moved to the trunk to improve front/rear weight distribution. The windshield washer reservoir and the coolant recovery tank were relocated to where they fit best. The air conditioning hoses were also re-routed. The firewall required no hammering, but the transmission tunnel needed lots of hammering to accommodate the 700-R4 transmission.

The V-8 added weight to the car. With all options (air conditioning, power windows, sunroof), 700-R4 automatic transmission, heavy duty trailer hitch (about 35 lbs), full tank of gas, rear mounted battery, IPD swaybars (about 15 lbs heavier than stock), and 2-1/2" exhaust; the car weighs about 3325 lbs and the weight distribution is 56/44 (front/rear). The published curb weight for the Volvo is listed at about 3120 lbs, so taking into account that the sway bars and trailer hitch added about 50 lbs, the V-8 added about 150 lbs. The weight distribution is close to stock, and it is much better than the late-model V-8 Mustangs and Camaros which typically have a weight distribution of 58/42.

The car has a heavier feel than a 4-cylinder car, but it does not feel much different than a diesel car or a V6 car. It doesn't even feel very fast, although it accelerates quite well. That phenomenon is referred to as refinement. A quiet, smooth car typically feels slower than it really is. Conversely, a noisy, vibrating car often feels faster than it really is.

Improved Merging Power!

With the standard 3.31 gears, 195/70-14 tires, a 700-R4 transmission, and the stock Volvo 2 inch diesel exhaust, the car would do 0-60 mph in 8.1 seconds. The 1/4 mile took about 16.3 seconds with a trap speed of 84 mph. Changing to a 2-1/2" exhaust improved the 0-60 time to 7.7 seconds. The 1/4 mile took 16.1 seconds with a trap speed of 86 mph. These are real numbers, not hyped up numbers used for magazine articles or advertising purposes. In overdrive (.70:1), engine speed was 1900 rpm at 60 mph. Driven conservatively, gas mileage averaged about 18 mpg with either exhaust, trip mileage (freeway travel at 65-70 mph) was about 22 mpg.

A Borg-Warner 5-speed transmission with a .63:1 overdrive was then installed. A lightweight flywheel (16 lbs) from a TPI Camaro was installed to reduce weight, the car weighed about 70 lbs less than with the automatic transmission. Although the car felt much quicker, 0-60 mph takes 4/10 seconds longer (about 8.1 seconds) because it takes about 1/2 second to shift from one gear to another, and two gear changes are required to get to 60 mph. The quarter mile takes 16.2 seconds with a trap speed of 87 mph. In fifth gear (.63:1), engine speed is 1700 rpm at 60 mph. Driven conservatively, gas mileage averages about 19 mpg, and trip mileage is about 24 mpg, which is not surprising considering this same engine and transmission in a 1991 Camaro is EPA rated at about 17 mpg city and 26 mpg highway, although the Camaro has taller tires (26" diameter) and a taller rear axle ratio (2.73). Depending upon which magazines you believe, the performance and fuel mileage is comparable or superior to a Turbo-Intercooled 240 Volvo.

We installed an NOS (Nitrous Oxide Systems) throttle-body nitrous system to see how the car would hold up with some real power. The car has run a best quarter mile in 14.8 seconds at 95 mph with no mechanical problems. These times are very close to that of the 1994 Camaro Z28 with the 275 horsepower LT1 engine. It would be very expensive to get a Volvo engine to put out that kind of power.

To really test the V-8 swap, the author used this car to teach his sixteen-year-old nephew how to drive stick shift. The car came through just fine, but the author required some additional visits to his therapist.


-----

-Sam

Your going to tell me a Volvo 240DL timing Belt engine aluminum head will last nearly as long as a 240D dual row chain and all cast iron engine? Please. Also, your website states Irv went to work for Volvo after 1 million miles...really credible to be racking up miles with help from the company that built your car! The 180D went that long without MB helping him with car! And if my arguement is not enough, let me quote the Guru larry Bible:




"Come on, let's get serious here. Do you really believe that you can compare an aluminum head, rubber timing belt engine to an all cast iron, double row timing chain engine. Which one do you REALLY think will be more durable and long lived? Which one will much more easily warp a head? Which one needs a timing belt every 60,000 miles? Come on!

Okay, lets just say that you can, even though this is comparing oranges to apples, get the same level of engine durability and life from both. Have you ever seen a 20 year old Volvo that has spent any time at all in the heat? If you have, you know that all the plastic inside is wrinkled and shredded. An MB that has been exposed to the heat and sun will not look like new, but it will look a darn sight better than a Volvo exposed to the same elements.

Get real here, I'm all for being polite, but there is no comparison whatsoever. If it were 1980, and we had both cars brand new sitting side by side, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference in quality. But this is over 20 years later and we now have the knowledge of seeing how they hold up.

With those comparisons made, let's compare the Volve 240D to many other cars. Comparing it to most other cars built at the same time, it would come out highly superior.

My $0.02,"

Thats all.

I'll give you this.

In the hands of an abusive owner, a 220D or 240D's engine and interior would probably last longer.

-Sam