/o/, give me a rundown on Volvos. I'm talking 90's

>>15367194
I am also curious. I'm planning on making a turbo brick 940 over here in Seattle. I've been reading online and for $500 you can get 200+hp and for double about 350 easy.

Apparently the early 90s model 940 and 960s have the strongest engine but I also hear that the newer s60 and 70 models are very reliable and cheap.

Turbo bricks is a good forum for research, that's what I've been reading.

>>15367194
The 940's are actually real nice to wrench on. Having a proper lift or pit will help you with some of the things you need to do, though. (Changing oil on the gearbox and diff, replacing the fuel filter) If you treat them moderately well, they can be pretty forgiving cars. They have decent torque and comfort when you use them as daily drivers. I can definetely recommend them if you want a rwd alternative to an 850.

File: WP_20160617_17_14_56_Pro.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

I own a -01 V40 with the "big" engine.

What I can tell you about Volvos from this era is that they are still pretty easy to wrench on (I replaced my radiator beam in about 4 hours and I am complete noob). Mechanically solid, still tank -ish in the build and with godlike seats. They are however all wrong wheel drive and are generally not very exiting. And the mileage is bad on the turbos

File: 20160629_093659.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>15367194
I have an S60R awd 6spd. I love that car. Pretty easy to wrench on but cost of maint/repair is somewhat high. The automatics are pretty anemic too. Theyre super comfy to drive.

Ive had 850, 940, s40, v70 and this S60 is the comfiest but also more expensive to work on than my 530i was

>>15369673
>V40 with the "big" engine.

that would be?

a 1.8? lel

They're comfy as fuck, but don't expect much reliability past 150,000 miles. My 2002 S80 T6 is a good car, but it's on borrowed time (172,000 miles as of now)

Ford owned Volvo was a little bit depressing and I wish I owned a "real" Volvo. The S60R's are still cool though.

>>15369679
Probably the glorious 2.4 5cyl

>>15369679
Well... 1.9, even if it says 2.0 on the back. But I get 165hp from it. And I realized "more powerful" would have been a better term than "big"

>>15369687
the V40 has never been equipped with any 5 cylinder.

>>15369673

You realize that you're driving a rust-prone rebadged Mitsubishi Charisma, right? With added Euro-complexity.

They made extremely well built and durable (but not always reliable cars) through the 80s and 90s. In '99 they were bought by ford, and during most of the 2000s they made better looking but lower quality (still decent cars).

The last "real" Volvos worth buying are the 940 and 850/S70 up through the mid '90s. The 2/9/7 series use the famously long lasting 4 cylinder red block engine that came in turbo. Even with the turbo, they pretty damn slow. The 850 uses a different 5 cylinder engine thats faster, but not quite as durable.

The only model I would even consider in the 2000s is an S60 or C30

File: img_118888.jpg (507KB, 1600x899px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 1600x899px

To add one very important thing. If you go for V/S60 it has to be atleast a 03 model or newer. Why? Cause 00-02´s have the italian made ETM which will fail on you, forever and ever.

Other then that, they are pretty solid, some extra wear on front parts, bushings etc, also expect to get poor milage.. these are thirsty cars.

*Get Turbo model if you want a S60.

>>15370406
The 2.3L 5cyl turbo is a pretty strong block if u ask me. Drive a 850 T5R atm.

If you want a real volvo get one thats been made before ford bought it like others suggest.