Wanted - 1986 or newer 240 manual wagon

240 · 2015-07-03T10:20:46+00:00

Welcome! I will try and post any I see in the radar section and tag you!

240

Thanks, that's slightly reassuring then.
What years were the AW70 used in?
(And in case anyone knows - what years were other auto transmissions made in, and how do they compare? Just out of interest.)

240

I've also got another quick question which I know isn't really related but I thought I might as well use this thread - what sort of fuel comsumption do people here get on their 240s? Some sites I've read suggest around 9L/100km for city driving, while others suggest more like 14/100.

egads (she/her)

Pretty sure it is bw55 75-81 then aw70 or aw71 82-93

240Joe

egads;55674 wroteThe later 240 auto (aw70) is pretty solid and responsive. Manual will "feel" quicker but an auto 240 is still a good place to be.

Yep. The auto is slower from a stand still (but you can stay ahead of 99% of traffic if you want to), it moves really well at all other speeds once you get the hang of changing gears with the throttle. From 30km/h it will kick down gears nicely and can be pretty impressive from 80 to well over 100 for highway overtaking.

I've been driving this one everyday for 5 years, so it can't be too bad!

DCW242

Four cylinder had BW55 from '75 to part way through '83, then later in '83 they went to AW70 or 71, not sure witch.

240

Thanks for that info - the auto doesn't sound too bad then, even if the manual is better. (And of course there's always the possibility of doing a manual conversion.)
In the end I guess finding a decent example of a 240 is more important than having a manual.

Ex850R

They do suck the juice , even my old 245 manual wasnt that good on fuel.
The 79 245 i had was on kings springs , koni yellow shocks and handled REAL well , i havent driven a sedan but didnt find the wagon wanting for ability , speed , yes , at 130 odd Ks/HR flat out on a cold early morning blast from Melbourne to western Victoria , maybe 135.....the old K-Jet was a bit worn though but a 2.1lt at that too.
Get an auto and convert to Celica 5spd box with the right diff ratio and you are set.

DCW242

The '86+ ones are better on fuel.

240

And does manual/auto make a lot of difference with fuel?

I just had a look at the "Fuel Consumption Database" and interestingly, the 1986 auto apparently has 10/100, compared with 11/100 for the 1993 auto. Why would this be? Because I didn't think any components were changed between 86 and 93 that would affect fuel usage? (Or perhaps the guide is just inaccurate)

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/settlements/transport/fuelguide/fuelguide.pl?querytype=advancedquery&min_cons=&max_cons=&manufacturer=Volvo&year=any&transmission=any&fuel=petrol&vehicletype=any&model=240&minenginesize=2&maxenginesize=2.6&mincityfuel=&maxcityfuel=&minhighwayfuel=&maxhighwayfuel=&sort1=manufacturer&sort2=year

240 lasercowboy

I assume economy went down when cat cons came in? When was that for the oz market?

DCW242

'86+ 240s in Australia had cats.

240

At some stage, I suppose I'll probably end up going to have a look at a 240 - is there anything in particular that I should look for or check? (Particularly things that could end up potentially costing me $$$ to repair.)

lasercowboy

This list/writeup is a good start:

volvotips.com/index.php/240-260/volvo-240-260-buying-tips/

240

That looks pretty good, I might draw up a checklist at some point.
I guess there isn't really a lot that can go wrong with these cars that will end up costing a lot, is there.

240

http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/novar-gardens/cars-vans-utes/1985-volvo-sedan-showroom-quality/1086202346

What do you think of this one?
The seller has said that she can sell it for $2500, possibly less.
I've decided not to be too bothered by sedan vs wagon, so the only major downside is that it's auto.
I also would have preferred an 86+ model but that's not the end of the world. I was wanting an 86+ to get the B230F, because I don't know as much about the B230E and my understanding is that the latter is less modern, but can anyone here with more knowledge than me tell me how they stack up?
(Oh, and I got confused about two different types of wheels in the photos - turns out the front on view isn't of the actual car, which clears things up. Which is good, because I'm a fan of Virgos!)

perko

b230e is higher compression than f, and uses k-jet mechanical fuel injection. Some would say that these are the quickest of the NA 240's, and are probably the simplest when it comes to the engine related systems. Downside is that a 10:1 compression ratio means you pretty much have to fill up with 98, whereas I think the later cars are happy on 91 (someone correct me if i'm wrong on that). Other issue is that k-jet seems to be a bit of a dark art when it does go wrong, and so can be harder to troubleshoot problems, that said, I've been driving an '84 with b23e and k-jet for 2 years and am yet to have a fuel related problem so it isn't all bad

240

Thanks for that.
How does the fuel consumption stack up between the two?

Ex850R

It's very subjective.
Go with the list you read.
Get car , fix all fuel parts related bits and do stage 0 on everything for best chance at better economy.
Auto is not as good as manual for fun reasons and better economy.

240

With the car that I put a link up for a couple of posts ago (the 1985 240 GLE), how much do you think would be a reasonable price based on what it says in the ad? I know it's a 30 year old car but it has been looked after and has all service records so that would make it be worth a bit more, presumably?
Basically, do you think $2000 would be too much to pay, if I can get it for that?

« Previous Page Next Page »