time to retire the 240

#1 (**permalink**) 10-11-2007, 02:09 AM

Hi Folks,

It's time to let the 240 rest up after 447,865 miles of faithful
service. I'm considering a 00-02 V70 or a 96-98 960 wagon. Any
thoughts or preferences. Any particular weaknesses.

Thanks

#2 (**permalink**) 10-11-2007, 04:58 PM

Good link re: 960.

http://www.swedishbricks.net/700900F...a%20Used%20960

#3 (**permalink**) 10-11-2007, 04:58 PM

<pathayes81946@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's time to let the 240 rest up after 447,865 miles of faithful
> service. I'm considering a 00-02 V70 or a 96-98 960 wagon. Any
> thoughts or preferences. Any particular weaknesses.

The 1999 & 2000 V70 are VERY reliable. The 2001 which is what I own is
one of the lest reliable Volvos. Mine has served me well with no
problems, but statistically, it is a poor risk.

The 960's were among Volvo's least reliable vehicles. However, the '94
and '95 940 were among the more reliable Volvo's.

The most reliable Volvos are:

S60 (the 2002, 2005 & 2005 S60 are VERY reliable)
S60AWD (the 2004 & 2005 S60(AWD) are VERY reliable)
V70 (the 1999 & 2000 V70 are VERY reliable)
S80 (the 2004 S80 is VERY reliable)
S80AWD (the 2004 S80AWD is VERY reliable)
--
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
http://rhodyman.net/homevo.html

#4 (**permalink**) 10-11-2007, 05:42 PM

On 11 Oct, 16:34, Stephen Henning <pigh...@aol.com> wrote:
> <pathayes81...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 96-98 960 wagon.

Why not a '95 960 ? (low headlights, after the block porosity
problems)

> The 960's were among Volvo's least reliable vehicles.

Such as?
Having just bought a '95 UK-spec 2.5l 960, I have a vested interest
8-)

#5 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 12:08 AM

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:32:25 -0700, pathayes81946 wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> It's time to let the 240 rest up after 447,865 miles of faithful
> service. I'm considering a 00-02 V70 or a 96-98 960 wagon. Any thoughts
> or preferences. Any particular weaknesses.

Volvo 240s are just nicely broken in at 450,000 miles. Are you sure
you're not being premature? ;-)

#6 (**permalink**) 10-14-2007, 04:19 AM

pathayes81946@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> It's time to let the 240 rest up after 447,865 miles of faithful
> service. I'm considering a 00-02 V70 or a 96-98 960 wagon. Any
> thoughts or preferences. Any particular weaknesses.
>
> Thanks
>

The V70 is going to be much newer and the running costs are likely to be
lower than for a 960.

#7 (**permalink**) 10-14-2007, 07:56 PM

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rueQi.298$0k2.93@trnddc05...
> pathayes81946@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> It's time to let the 240 rest up after 447,865 miles of faithful
>> service. I'm considering a 00-02 V70 or a 96-98 960 wagon. Any
>> thoughts or preferences. Any particular weaknesses.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
> The V70 is going to be much newer and the running costs are likely to be
> lower than for a 960.
>

That's the problem with the 960 at this point. They're getting old, so
you're completely at the whim of however the thing was maintained over the
years. It could be in great shape, or it could need thousands of dollars
worth of litthe things that got neglected.

#8 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007, 09:33 PM

I'm really late to reply, but I was away...

I'm afraid you got that in reverse in regards to the 960/S90. I
should know, I had a 95, 960, a 96 960, a 97 960 and a 98 S90.

The nbame change in Jan 97 from 960 to S90. The 98 is teh last year
and the best one to get. The 97 and 96 are also fine. Saty away from
pre 96 model. 95 was a major overhaul of the car. Famous problem
previous to overhaul was timing belt braking. The 92 has a porous
engine block as well as many other annoying things.

The only real problem is that the 960/S90 tends to eat the brake pads
and the discs always get warped. Other than that, it is your typical
Volvo. A/C needing repairs after 5 years. Parts are very expensive.
Easy to maintain.

The V70 is a rebadge 850. Volvo terminated in 98. After they became
Ford. Be warned. OTOH, if you enjoy frequent trips to the dealer you
will be pleased.

The S80 is a lemon during the first 3-4 years of production. The last
or latest years seem ok. But has poor resale value due to early
reputation.

S60 are kind of fine. They have their little annoying problems like
all Volvos produced under Ford.

My 2 Canadian cents, which currently worth more than 2 US cents :-)

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:34:22 -0400, Stephen Henning <pighash@aol.com>
wrote:

><pathayes81946@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's time to let the 240 rest up after 447,865 miles of faithful
>> service. I'm considering a 00-02 V70 or a 96-98 960 wagon. Any
>> thoughts or preferences. Any particular weaknesses.
>
>The 1999 & 2000 V70 are VERY reliable. The 2001 which is what I own is
>one of the lest reliable Volvos. Mine has served me well with no
>problems, but statistically, it is a poor risk.
>
>The 960's were among Volvo's least reliable vehicles. However, the '94
>and '95 940 were among the more reliable Volvo's.
>
>The most reliable Volvos are:
>
>S60 (the 2002, 2005 & 2005 S60 are VERY reliable)
>S60AWD (the 2004 & 2005 S60(AWD) are VERY reliable)
>V70 (the 1999 & 2000 V70 are VERY reliable)
>S80 (the 2004 S80 is VERY reliable)
>S80AWD (the 2004 S80AWD is VERY reliable)

#9 (**permalink**) 11-02-2007, 09:40 PM

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:49:27 GMT, NoOne <None@none.com> wrote:

>The nbame change in Jan 97 from 960 to S90. The 98 is teh last year
>and the best one to get. The 97 and 96 are also fine. Saty away from
>pre 96 model. 95 was a major overhaul of the car.

What's the problem with the '95 2.5l 960 ? AIUI, the 3l had problems,
but these resolved with the facelift. Are the problems you're talking
about engine-related or electrics?