Discussion
Hi, been considering upgrading from my current '92(K) 940 Estate and don't know whether to get a newer 940 or an 850, but I don't really know much about 850's other than I think they are FWD. Have they as much carrying capacity, are they as reliable, how do they handle, are they as easy to repair, what performance & mpg can I expect etc. Anyone had both to compare?
Regards
Tony H
Regards
Tony H
I've driven both.
Mainly 940 variants but the 850 was dynamically much better, even though it was FWD. It felt less of a tank and the suspension was firmer and you had more confidence in it. The 940 was capable but it did wallow around a bit.
The 850 doesn't match the 940 for size or interior space by any means. If you have a lot to carry around and want a car which will just keep eating luggage, the 940/960/V90s are hard to beat, even now.
Quality of interiors were a step up in the 850s. Later ones had a better stereo too, but then if you're always loading up with garden stuff, muddy wellies and the like then it's probably wasted.
Just my thoughts.
Mainly 940 variants but the 850 was dynamically much better, even though it was FWD. It felt less of a tank and the suspension was firmer and you had more confidence in it. The 940 was capable but it did wallow around a bit.
The 850 doesn't match the 940 for size or interior space by any means. If you have a lot to carry around and want a car which will just keep eating luggage, the 940/960/V90s are hard to beat, even now.
Quality of interiors were a step up in the 850s. Later ones had a better stereo too, but then if you're always loading up with garden stuff, muddy wellies and the like then it's probably wasted.
Just my thoughts.
Oh, and performance wise, the 850 has more engine choice. They are 5cyl rather than 4 on the 940s.
If I recall correctly, there was a choice of 2.0 20v, 2.5 10v or 20v or a TDI. I think the TDI was Audi sourced. There was also a lot more choice in the spec department, S, SE, GLE, GLT.
Can't remember when the T5 was launched - not sure if it was at the same time as the others, but that will be quicker than a 940 HPT by a long way, althought MPG will be in the 20s and you;ll go through front tyres a lot quicker as the first ones didn't have TRACS.
If I recall correctly, there was a choice of 2.0 20v, 2.5 10v or 20v or a TDI. I think the TDI was Audi sourced. There was also a lot more choice in the spec department, S, SE, GLE, GLT.
Can't remember when the T5 was launched - not sure if it was at the same time as the others, but that will be quicker than a 940 HPT by a long way, althought MPG will be in the 20s and you;ll go through front tyres a lot quicker as the first ones didn't have TRACS.
i had a V70 tdi the 850 shape one, and it was great, the engine is a 5 pot audi engine 140hp loads of torque, brilliant tow car, very econiomical 45mpg easy and loads of space in the back. admitedly not as big as the 940 i had but the drive was in a different league. 850 has to be the way to go i think.
pikey
pikey
Depends how many miles you want to do, and how long you want to keep it....
The 850 and V70 are certainly better to drive, better handling and depending on variant, quicker, without a doubt, (although we reckon the 740/940 seats are more comfortable) but I don't think they are going to be continuing volvo's reputaion for making "old bones"
The older rear wheel drive cars, (proper volvo) mostly by virtue of being simpler and more rugged and workmanlike, seem to be more reliable, and long lived.
Friend of mine has a 740 on an E plate, that we bought from a scrapyard for £150. he is currently doing 500 miles per week in it, its now on 215,000 miles or so, and in the last 30,000 miles, total number of things gone wrong: 0
My father has just bought a late 940 Turbo to replace his 2 year newer V70 AWD as he does 25,000 per year and the V70 was costing an absolute fortune to run, compared to when he was doing the same mileage in an 18 yr old 180K 240....
(anyone want a P plate V70 AWD with 197K and a knackered propshaft? propshaft parts not available separately, new prop more than car.....)
One of the cost benefits of the 940 is you can work easily on them yourself, or its quicker for mechanics to do it for you - cambelt takes an hour, clutch is also easy due to longitudinal layout, U-joints for propshaft cost £30, you can sit in the engine bay to work on the engine etc etc
My parents have always had volvos and apart from my first car, so have I, but once the rear-drivers have all got too old to be used that regularly (parts availabilty etc) not quite sure what we're going to do....
IMHO.
The 850 and V70 are certainly better to drive, better handling and depending on variant, quicker, without a doubt, (although we reckon the 740/940 seats are more comfortable) but I don't think they are going to be continuing volvo's reputaion for making "old bones"
The older rear wheel drive cars, (proper volvo) mostly by virtue of being simpler and more rugged and workmanlike, seem to be more reliable, and long lived.
Friend of mine has a 740 on an E plate, that we bought from a scrapyard for £150. he is currently doing 500 miles per week in it, its now on 215,000 miles or so, and in the last 30,000 miles, total number of things gone wrong: 0
My father has just bought a late 940 Turbo to replace his 2 year newer V70 AWD as he does 25,000 per year and the V70 was costing an absolute fortune to run, compared to when he was doing the same mileage in an 18 yr old 180K 240....
(anyone want a P plate V70 AWD with 197K and a knackered propshaft? propshaft parts not available separately, new prop more than car.....)
One of the cost benefits of the 940 is you can work easily on them yourself, or its quicker for mechanics to do it for you - cambelt takes an hour, clutch is also easy due to longitudinal layout, U-joints for propshaft cost £30, you can sit in the engine bay to work on the engine etc etc
My parents have always had volvos and apart from my first car, so have I, but once the rear-drivers have all got too old to be used that regularly (parts availabilty etc) not quite sure what we're going to do....
IMHO.
Oh, and:
[url]http://img45.echo.cx/img45/492/yesitw[/url]
The 940's aren't quite as quick as that as they had to be strangled by catalytic convertors and other such "niceties" but you could always take them off.
[url]http://img45.echo.cx/img45/492/yesitw[/url]
The 940's aren't quite as quick as that as they had to be strangled by catalytic convertors and other such "niceties" but you could always take them off.
We currently have both, and one has to go, so have had a similar choice to make. We have had our 850 workhorse(1994,2.5 10V estate)for 6 years and it's still going strong after 225K miles. Other than routine servicing it has only needed a new clutch in all that time. Also have a 960(1996 V90 model 3.0 CD estate)which is said to be the best estate Volvo ever made - and I wouldn't disagree. With rear wheel drive and a silky smooth 6-cyl (Volvos own as in the S80, not to be confused with the old Renault V6 which was rubbish) the 960 is sportier to drive and not much thirstier (high 20's mpg vs. low 30's in the 850). It is definitely not a barge like the older 940 series. However, it has to go - only because it is worth more to sell, and I couldn't bear to turn it into a workhorse like the 850. So one top spec 960 estate may be available to a good home, for a reasonable offer of course!
And besides, the 940 has just acheved celeberity status!
www.mirror.co.uk/motoring/richardhammond/tm_headline=solid-swede%26method=full%26objectid=18308959%26siteid=94762-name_page.html
Gassing Station | Volvo & Polestar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff