Joined
·
18 Posts
Out of curiousity, how does the classic saab compare to the volvo 240's. Let me know why you would take one over the other if you know them both. thanks
classic saab vs volvo 240
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Joined
·
10,081 Posts
This is chalk.
That is cheese.
Because one is a very good car, whilst the other is the illegitimate offspring of a breezeblock and a filing cabinet.
Joined
·
18,382 Posts
"Volvos suck"
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
I am going to talk crazy because I have a Volvo 740 turbo and two Saab 900s. Do note that I personally do not like the 240s. And all this is IHMO:
Volvo 240 ===============================
PROS
o Easy to work on though the 700/900s are even easier.
o Cheap and abundant parts. Many of a 700/900 will fit it. Well, some parts of a 140 will fit it.
o Was originally designed to take, as one of the options, a V8 engine. The project end up losing two cylinders and became the PRV engine. Which is why people put different engines in it, from the usual SBC to a VW TDI engine.
o Rugged. It is used in many different kinds of races. Also, it takes more than nasty words to compromise its cabin.
o Engines can be built to reliably deliver 600HP. More if it is a race-only car.
o RWD.
o Makes it easier to swap transmissions. Many people have put T5s, W58s, and Getrag 265s behind those engines.
o Good aftermarket support (at least in Europe but some in the US).
o Volvo wiring diagrams are one of the best.
CONs
o Use the worst fuses known to man
o Some used Chrysler ignition that goes on strike if you look at it wrong.
o The transmissions could be better. The Manuals have horrible ratios.
o It is ugly IMHO. But, many like it for its looks and say the 700s look too American. So, it is a matter of taste.
o Relays were laid wherever they felt doing so. In the 700s, they were together with fuses in the center console so you could reach them from the driver's seat in the rain.
o Hood does not go vertical like a 700.
o Biodegradable wiring insulation until late 80s.
Saab 900 =========================================
PROS
o Very unique lines. Once again this is subjective: some like others hate it.
o Easy to replace clutch.
o Very though body. I know of someone who rolled down two levels in a mountain on one and only cracked the windshield.
o Very good on snow
o Engine can be built to deliver more than 400HP reliably
o saabcentral. Honestly that is one of the main reasons I have one. The help and support here, specially in the Classic 900 area, is nothing but amazing.
CONS
o Transmission, both manual and automagic
o Changing suspension parts is not fun. Not the shocks but the bushings.
o Not as much space in engine bay as a Volvo
o Small selection of engines that fit in it
o Why are the fenders/wings welded to the car?
o Uses the same awful connectors as Volvo does
Volvo 240 ===============================
PROS
o Easy to work on though the 700/900s are even easier.
o Cheap and abundant parts. Many of a 700/900 will fit it. Well, some parts of a 140 will fit it.
o Was originally designed to take, as one of the options, a V8 engine. The project end up losing two cylinders and became the PRV engine. Which is why people put different engines in it, from the usual SBC to a VW TDI engine.
o Rugged. It is used in many different kinds of races. Also, it takes more than nasty words to compromise its cabin.
o Engines can be built to reliably deliver 600HP. More if it is a race-only car.
o RWD.
o Makes it easier to swap transmissions. Many people have put T5s, W58s, and Getrag 265s behind those engines.
o Good aftermarket support (at least in Europe but some in the US).
o Volvo wiring diagrams are one of the best.
CONs
o Use the worst fuses known to man
o Some used Chrysler ignition that goes on strike if you look at it wrong.
o The transmissions could be better. The Manuals have horrible ratios.
o It is ugly IMHO. But, many like it for its looks and say the 700s look too American. So, it is a matter of taste.
o Relays were laid wherever they felt doing so. In the 700s, they were together with fuses in the center console so you could reach them from the driver's seat in the rain.
o Hood does not go vertical like a 700.
o Biodegradable wiring insulation until late 80s.
Saab 900 =========================================
PROS
o Very unique lines. Once again this is subjective: some like others hate it.
o Easy to replace clutch.
o Very though body. I know of someone who rolled down two levels in a mountain on one and only cracked the windshield.
o Very good on snow
o Engine can be built to deliver more than 400HP reliably
o saabcentral. Honestly that is one of the main reasons I have one. The help and support here, specially in the Classic 900 area, is nothing but amazing.
CONS
o Transmission, both manual and automagic
o Changing suspension parts is not fun. Not the shocks but the bushings.
o Not as much space in engine bay as a Volvo
o Small selection of engines that fit in it
o Why are the fenders/wings welded to the car?
o Uses the same awful connectors as Volvo does
Joined
·
265 Posts
I used to have a Volvo 265 (240 3.0l V6 estate) which was amazing. Surprised many a boy racer off the lights.
Unfortunately, it had been badly abused by a PO, no maintenance whatsoever for what looked like years. However, managed to sell it for more than I paid for it.
I liked the car, but it was sooo different from the 900, you just can't compare.
Unfortunately, it had been badly abused by a PO, no maintenance whatsoever for what looked like years. However, managed to sell it for more than I paid for it.
I liked the car, but it was sooo different from the 900, you just can't compare.
I have both a Volvo (specifically a 240 and used to own a 760 turbo) and a Saab C900 convertible, i think they are both awesome and it is hard to compare them as they seem to have each been designed for a different type of buyer.
But they both share the humble & understated quality that you dont get from other continental cars.
Though both marques seem to suffer from , that is gearboxes, not that they are unreliable but problematic if not taken care off.
Comparing the saab 900 against the volvo 240 is like comparing the bmw e28 against the mercedes w123, cars designed for different type of people and excell at what they are designed for.
It such a shame to see such anmosity between the enthusiasts sometimes considering how rare enthusiast of both cars are especially in a small country like N.Z.
Just what i think is all.
But they both share the humble & understated quality that you dont get from other continental cars.
Though both marques seem to suffer from , that is gearboxes, not that they are unreliable but problematic if not taken care off.
Comparing the saab 900 against the volvo 240 is like comparing the bmw e28 against the mercedes w123, cars designed for different type of people and excell at what they are designed for.
It such a shame to see such anmosity between the enthusiasts sometimes considering how rare enthusiast of both cars are especially in a small country like N.Z.
Just what i think is all.
I think it depends on where you are, and what you want the car to do.
I have owned 3 240's, each one proved itself to be indestructible.
My instinct is that 240's are probably the more reliable option, but having said that, a good low k 240 is near impossible to find, so might need more work sooner.
Of course, for practicality, the 240 wagon beats everything else out there.
Parts (In Oz) are a little easier to come by in my opinion, and similar to Saab, I have found spares for either car to be affordable (with some notable exceptions). I think that if either car didnt have power steering costs so high at replacement time - well that one would be the winner
Looks wise? I like the 240, and I love the Saab, one is pretty, one is boxy, but I love the boxy
I have owned 3 240's, each one proved itself to be indestructible.
My instinct is that 240's are probably the more reliable option, but having said that, a good low k 240 is near impossible to find, so might need more work sooner.
Of course, for practicality, the 240 wagon beats everything else out there.
Parts (In Oz) are a little easier to come by in my opinion, and similar to Saab, I have found spares for either car to be affordable (with some notable exceptions). I think that if either car didnt have power steering costs so high at replacement time - well that one would be the winner
Looks wise? I like the 240, and I love the Saab, one is pretty, one is boxy, but I love the boxy
I had a 240 wagon [new]...I hated it but my Wife loved it.
I had a 900s [new]...my Wife liked it, I loved it.
Now I have a used 900 turbo...best car I have ever owned. Much better than the S, well it's faster
Now own a Volvo V70 wagon w/ 177K [actually it's my Wifes car]...much better than a 240 IMO, but still slow. It's a heavy car and you feel very safe in it.
BTW...240 rwd, 900 fwd.
I had a 900s [new]...my Wife liked it, I loved it.
Now I have a used 900 turbo...best car I have ever owned. Much better than the S, well it's faster
Now own a Volvo V70 wagon w/ 177K [actually it's my Wifes car]...much better than a 240 IMO, but still slow. It's a heavy car and you feel very safe in it.
BTW...240 rwd, 900 fwd.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Join the discussion
