… or perhaps thrice, since the dark soot over the exhaust is an additional, unmistakable sign that a diesel powers this Volvo 740 sedan. Two full nameplates and engine badges stacked on top of each other (and diesel soot left layered over them proudly) announce the owner’s pride in his or her 740 Turbodiesel, a short-lived model in the U.S. market. Since few Americans have owned a 740 Turbodiesel, or were even aware that it existed most likely, a brief look at this unusually configured model is in order.
The early to mid-1980s were the heyday for diesels cars in the U.S. market, with Mercedes’ long-running diesel passenger cars joined by GM with its Oldsmobile V-8 and V-6 diesels from 1978-85, BMW with its 1985-86 524td, and Volkswagen Rabbit and Dasher, Lincoln Mark VII and Toyota Camry diesels. Volvo joined the diesel party in 1983 with the 760 Turbodiesel, redesignated the 740 Turbodiesel toward the end of its U.S. run in 1986.
To power its diesel cars, Volvo turned to Volkwagen, but instead of using the four cylinder diesel passenger car version of its engines used in the Rabbit and Dasher, Volvo powered the relatively large and heavy 740/760 with the 2.4 liter D24 inline six diesel from Volkswagen, as also used in their LT van. This engine was essentially a six cylinder version of VW’s four and five cylinder diesel engines, and shared many internal components. The turbodiesel version used by Volvo in the 740/760 produced a healthy (for a diesel) 127 hp @ 4700 rpm and 203 ft-lb of torque @ 2,550 rpm.
A Volvo with a diesel engine will sound like a dream car to fans of Swedish Bricks and the idea of a car that can last a lifetime, but the 740/760 Turbodiesel lasted only a short time in the new car marketplace and earned a mixed reputation. It exited the U.S. market in 1986 and the European market in 1988.
In service, the D24 diesel engine compiled a mixed reputation in terms of reliability and longevity. Some had issues with head gaskets and cracked cylinder heads, along with resultant overheating. It was important to change the timing belt at prescribed intervals. But many owners were also very happy with these engines, if they were maintained well, and their issues understood. Some of these engines have clocked 300, 400 and even over 500k miles, with the kind of long-distance durability the VW four and five cylinder diesel engines are known for. One assumes that the engine in this 740 Turbodiesel falls in that camp.
With or without a sterling reputation for durability, this 740 Turbodiesel appears to provide its owner with an abundance of pride in ownership. Aside from being festooned with 740 GLE Turbodiesel badges in two fonts and with a dark sooty engine call out, this diesel Volvo was found in the parking lot of the National Archives research center in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC, a sure sign of having an owner with a far greater than average interest in things lasting a long time. Rust-free, clean (aside from the diesel soot) and in apparently excellent condition inside and outside for a daily driver that is almost 30 years old, this 740 Turbodiesel with its VW diesel engine projects solidity and longevity, regardless of whether it has proven to be a reliable example or a money pit. If “you are what you drive,” to repeat the overused cliché, then the owner of this 740 Turbodiesel is no doubt driving the right car.
I’m glad to see Curbside Classic is finally doing an article on the Volvo Diesel. You’ve done Volvo cars in the past. I’ve seen and read some great articles regarding the 122S Amazon, the Volvo 140 series, the 700 series. But this is the first time I’ve seen an article on the Volvo 740 Turbodiesel. It’s unforgivable that the 740 Diesel was never offered on the USA market for very long. Is diesel for everyone? No, of course not. But I believe that those who need a diesel powered car, or want a diesel car, for whatever reason, should be allowed to buy one, and that Volvo should’ve remained on the market for way longer than it was. Emissions be damned. Are diesels perfect? I’m sure with the right maintenance, it’ll last indefinitely. If enough Volkswagen and Volvo service centres in North America had the parts necessary to perform service and maintenance required, then the engine would’ve been allowed to prove itself reliable.
The VW dealers certainly had the staff, equipment and parts to service their vehicles. The issue with the Volvo like most of the other cars in the US that got a diesel in that era was that not enough people purchased them for it to be worth the mfg’s investment in making them.
That’s unforgivable. You’d think they’d keep the engine on the market long enough for people decide for themselves. I think the reason has, in part, to do with unrealistic (at best) emissions standards, that diesel wasn’t able, at the time to meet. If a car can’t meet certain emissions standards, then it’s not allowed to be sold in North America, and sure as hell not in the United States. It’s unfortunate that govt. makes up such standards for cars.
“It’s unfortunate that govt. makes up such standards for cars.”
Really? With few exceptions the automakers had to be dragged kicking and screaming to implement emissions and safety and improvements. I’m recall the Los Angeles of the ’70’s, when on most days you could cut the auto emissions fueled smog with a knife. A recent visit was remarkable for the much cleaner air, which the locals say is the norm and attribute the improvement to the much cleaner vehicles on the road. This is the case even though total miles driven is far more now than 40 years ago.
It may be heritical to say, but sometimes the government does get it right.
Emissions Standards for Diesels in the 80s and 90s were quite lax. The bar was raised a bit in 2003 and the screws really turned with the ’07 and 2010 standards.
Do they? I think the emissions standards are unrealistic at best.
As Volvo dealers, despite selling very few 240 diesels and even fewer 700-series turbo diesels, we were obliged to invest in the special tools and diesel training was mandatory for Volvo Master Technician status. My memory is getting a bit hazy on this engine, but IIRC there was a cooling issue in the block between the 5th and 6th cylinder, that caused a measurable number of failures in earlier versions. This prompted a design revision, after which it achieved more traditional diesel life expectancy. But we had already soured on the VW power plant … especially considering that our B-series gas engines were so incredibly robust anyway.
I saw this article actually several times since I discovered this last year, and figure its high time I reply to it–I am the the owner of this 1986 Volvo 740 Turbo Diesel, which is also the last year these were imported, making this one about the last one here. Actually, I am the 4th/5th owner of it, and there is reason of the unclear figure, here.
I’ll start with my history with it. I was dealing to buy it in August 2010 to replace my father’s 1985 740 Turbo diesel, until its 2nd owner (who got it from an old woman who rarely used it) traded it to a dealership in Chicago. I asked him where he traded it, and I was on the next Amtrak to Chicago to get it. At that time it had 77,941 miles. I used it daily and on road trips from Maryland to South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc.
I’ve had to do maintenance, of course, but last March 2017 I was talked by others into selling it off, against my wishes. Well, I regretted that enough, that in December 2017, I simply bought it back from the person I sold it to, which is why I can be counted twice as the 4th/5th owner of it. I still use it, and as of now, has 149,000 miles, when it should have about 320,000 miles by now. Keeps on truckin!
The roar of the straight six was great and in Europe this and its sibling the 240 Diesel were warmly welcomed on the market.
Many a Dutch Taxi fleet owner would try a few just to see if they would be competible to the eternal Mercedes Taxi’s.
Headroom for passengers in the 740 was great.
The atmospheric engines were not bad at all, but to be honest more roar then powerrrr.
And earlier cars suffered the mentioned head gasket problems.
My boss’es 240 Station Wagon Diesel was a dream on long trips to France I did in it.
These dreams were rudely disturbed when one night I was overtaken by a CX diesel Station wagon.
A 2500 turbo-diesel and a newspaper driver.
In that pre-digital era, American newspapers arrived by plane in Paris CdG airport and were driven by a fleet of four and six wheel Cx’es all over Europe for distribution.
The Cx pulled away from me, but me, Always competitive chased it with the Volvo.
It was no match, the only way I could catch up with that darn CX was when he was slowing down for overtaking trucks.
A fast right and then sharp left hander shattered my dream, the Cx was gone, way in the distance, leaving me with a disillusion and a roaring straight six.
And those six-wheelers Cx they really existed :
Made by a company called Tissier
I’m glad to see that Europe has embraced diesel powered cars. But why the hell hasn’t we North American car buyers? Are they perfect? Are they reliable? Maybe they are, maybe not. But I believe that if given the right care and enough places to have work done then people will be able, and willing to drive them.
Fuel cost is the only rational reason I can think of; at least in Tucson, it’s usually 40¢/g more expensive. If it weren’t for this, I’d shop for a Diesel car over a hybrid (which in Tucson are very popular). The reason for this price spread has eluded me.
Last I checked, M-B doesn’t even offer a Diesel car model anymore.
There is also usually a hefty price premium on the diesel model. People “do the math” and find that the fuel economy improvement is not enough to offset the additional cost of the fuel per gallon and car itself. Modern diesel engines are expensive to make because of their high pressure fuel systems and complex emission equipment.
But to calculate the payback on EPA fuel economy is a mistake because diesels do much better in real world than label. If you do a lot of long distance highway driving the diesel premium almost always makes sense and of course you have a nicer driving car.
High performance diesels (a 6 cylinder, around 3.0 liter displacement) all do circa 30 mpg on average in real life.
300,000 km (187,500 miles) on the odometer after 5 years or so is pretty common in this class of executive diesels.
Actually using the EPA estimates alone will make the diesel look better because that does not figure in the much higher maintenance and repair costs of a diesel. Since on average it costs more per mile to operate a diesel car driving more won’t decrease the payback period it will just increase the added expense of driving a diesel.
Depends on the model you buy, cost of fuel, how much you drive and what you use for your fuel economy assumptions.
Let’s compare the BMW 328d and 328 gas in today’s terms.
328d EPA highway is 45 but from my experience that is more like 50 real world.
328 gas is 36 EPA highway, which I find accurate.
A high mileage driver would be 35,000/year, let’s say. To keep this analysis simple let’s assume those are all highway miles.
Let’s use $4.00/gallon for gas and $4.30/gallon for diesel.
The 328 gas uses 972 gallons a year at a cost of $3,888. The 328d uses 700 gallons at a cost of $3,010. It costs $878 less per year in fuel to drive the 328d 35,000 highway miles.
Over a four year ownership period that’s a saving of $3,500. The 328d MSRP premium is $1,300 leaving you $2,200 ahead on the diesel. I can’t see spending anywhere near that amount on additional maintenance for the 328d, not when the first 50,000 miles are covered by BMW except for glow plugs, particulate filter and urea.
When fuel costs are higher, say $5.00 for gas and $5.38 for diesel (same % spread as before) the diesel numbers look even better and that’s assuming you will get the same price for the diesel at trade-in, which is being very generous to the gas.
Of course the diesel is a much nicer car to drive out on the highway.
to chime in here: the Diesel is more efficient for several reasons: the fuel packs more BTUs than gasoline. The engine does not have a throttle and thus eliminates pumping losses. A gasoline engine has pumping losses at partially open throttle, not so much at wide open throttle. In short the Diesel’s greatest advantage is in city driving and at high speed they are about even.
In Europe Diesel fuel is sold at a lower price per liter than the gasoline. That accelerates the payback of the higher purchase price. It indeed is a tax incentive.
In Europe the refiners are optimized for the production of Diesel fuel, in the US they are optimized for gasoline.
The cost of Diesel fuel seems to be the only reason I’d accept. But then Diesel used to at one time cost less than $1.00 per gallon (or litre depending on where in the world you live). It wasn’t until the US govt. started upping the emissions standards to another unrealistic level, that the gas stations had to raise the cost of diesel to match that of gasoline. That’s just inexcusable.
@ calibrick, The problem from where I’m at is that the price spread is higher than that on average. A friend of my who used to own a TDI Jetta compared the price of diesel he used and gas his wife used and found that the average over the year was about 12.5%. So if gas was $4/gal then Diesel would be $4.50 on average, at least in my area. Then you need to add the cost of urea which is another 1 or 2 %. So we will just call it $4.55 for easy calculations. So $3540 for the diesel’s fuel and fluid and $3890 for gas. For a difference in fuel cost of $350 per year. A gas engine doesn’t need a fuel filter change until 100K and when it does it is a $50~$75 cost. Diesels on the other hand call out for their filters to be changed every 20-40K. Changing the fuel filters on a diesel can run from $150~$300. Then you have the air filter which also needs to be changed at least twice as often and the cost of the filter is usually much more expensive. At this point the oil change intervals on LD diesels are usually about the same as on gas powered vehicles but the diesel’s filter is usually more expensive, they usually use more oil and the oil is usually more expensive. So you can pretty much kiss that $350 a year savings on fuel good bye once you factor in the added maintenance costs.
Certainly that is going to vary from area to area and the price difference does vary from season to season as well. If the mfg will cover oil, urea, and filters then of course that will change things too at least during that free maintenance period.
As Paul mentioned below there is a reason that diesel has fallen out of favor with fleets and that is because the total operating cost of a gas engine vehicle is lower. That is for vehicles like step vans, 3/4 and 1 ton pickups and even class 4-5 trucks that all use a lot of fuel.
@wolfgang, the problem is that many diesels, at least in the US, now have throttles, controlled by the computer which are needed for EGR operation and DPF regeneration so there went that advantage.
OK Eric since you went into the details let me do what I should have done in the first place. When I go to trade-in that 4-year old, 140,000 mile 328d I’m going to get back that $1,300 price premium that got paid for by my fuel cost savings.
Who knows it could be more but I did a 2 minute check on NADA and found the ’09 E320d was worth $1,300 more ($19.8 vs. $18.5) than a E350. I’m assuming they are comparable in spec and remember the diesel being about $1,000 more new.
That restores the diesel advantage in my original analysis and then some, including your service costs.
Diesels have better resale value.
@calibrick I find it hard to believe that in 09 the diesel was only $1000 more than the gas engine other things equal. Many mfgs do make if very hard to determine how much more the diesel really adds to the price since they often don’t make the diesel a stand alone option and the packages/trim levels aren’t directly equal. Right now the 328d is $1300 more than a 328i so if that was the case back then yes you got your initial investment back so we are back to the cost of fluids and maintenance and the higher cost of those items for the diesel means that there is no cost benefit to the diesel.
If you prefer diesel that’s great, just don’t try and tell me that buying one will save you money. That ship has sailed and is never coming back to a US port again, now that diesels do not get what was essentially a free pass on emissions for many years.
Eric the ship hasn’t sailed anywhere. It dropped anchor and is trying to decide whether to head home or back to shore.
Reason to go home: Current low fuel prices in US
Reasons to head back: Everything else*
* Fuel will go up, VW TDI sales at all-time high, RAM 1500 diesel sold-out, CO2 concerns, etc.
I will be the first to admit that a diesel doesn’t make financial sense for most US drivers at today’s fuel costs. However if you drive a lot I just showed you how it can save you $3,500 on a 328 over four years. The initial price premium is recovered during trade-in. The additional service costs aren’t going to make a very big dent in that $3,500.
It’s strange to hear the 328d doesn’t make “cents” even though the RW fuel economy is 39% better (50 mpg vs. 36) and then, from the same people, praise for cars like the Fusion Hybrid.
You are right it’s hard to figure out the price premium on a diesel or hybrid because of the packaging but near as I can tell the Fusion Hybrid costs at least $3,500 more than the comparable gas.
Sure there is no diesel premium on the fuel but there also isn’t as much improvement in the mileage, unless you do it all in the city in which case you aren’t going to rack up enough miles to pay back that $3,500.
As for resale the hybrids will always have that battery issue to deal with.
The upcoming 2.2L CDI on the Mazda 6 and MX5 will be a good test. Let’s just hope they get those oiling issues figured out before launching the thing. The last thing diesel needs is another Olds 350.
Some of the reason for the price spread is taxes, the federal diesel tax is 6 cents per gallon more. Not sure where your state stands on the state taxes some tax gas and diesel as the same rate while others give one or the other a lower tax. The mandate for low sulfur also plays a part as that is more expensive to make than the high sulfur version. Part of it is due to demand. From a given barrel of crude using only straight distillation you get a fixed ratio of gas to diesel. Technology does exist that allows refiners to manipulate that ratio but doing so is more expensive.
FYI, AZ’s tax on Diesel, for non-commercial or nonprofit vehicles, is the same as for gas: 18¢/g. Even the higher rate (26¢) could not explain the difference. Spot check: OR also has equal tax rates: 30¢.
Ref: http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/faq/commercial-services/fuel-tax-information
Hence my perplexity.
P.S. Forgot to add, the sulphur theory sounds plausible.
Re supply/demand, the US is a major, if not the largest, exporter of refined fuels. Maybe foreign buyers are simply willing to pay more.
Diesel and gasoline are global commodities, and are priced accordingly. Because diesel is used so extensively in other parts of the world, and used exclusively for heavy equipment, rail, etc.., diesel prices tend to reflect the global economy more than gas or oil prices.
A few years back, when China’s economy (and many other developing countries) was roaring, there was a global excessive demand for diesel, and diesel became significantly more expensive than gas, up to 50cents more than gas, in parts of the US. Supply and demand. It takes many years to build a new refinery, and they can’t readily change the mix of gas and diesel.
America refines plenty of gas, and its price is more stable. The rest of the world’s use of gas isn’t increasing as fast as diesel. Europe refines an excess amount of gas too, and even sells gas to the US, depending on market prices.
Diesel prices are coming back down as the global economy is slowing down. But it’s very unlikely that it will ever be cheaper than gasoline again, on a pre-tax basis.
Another potential factor is experience and/or exposure. Likely the first exposure many in the U.S. had to diesel powered cars was not a Volvo or Mercedes or VW – it was likely a diesel powered Oldsmobile.
Simple: In Europe, fuel costs some $7-$10 gallon. When you’re paying that much, a 20-25% difference in mileage makes a big difference. The extra cost for a diesel engine is recouped fairly quickly. The bigger the car/SUV/truck, the more the diesel makes sense. On the other end of the spectrum, in Europe small and cheap cars are least likely to have diesels, because the extra cost is not so easily amortized when even the gas versions get very good mileage. Also, in Europe diesel is consistently cheaper than gasoline, due to tax breaks. It’s simple economics.
In the US, diesel is generally more expensive than gas, and our fuel is so much cheaper, that the economics of recouping the extra $2k or so for a diesel engine is much less likely, unless one runs very high miles per year. Also, maintenance costs are higher for the diesel, and when something breaks, it’s a more complex engine than a normally-aspirated gas engine. Replacing a high-pressure diesel injection system is quite expensive. Etc.
Again, economics. In the US, most fleets that run pickups and medium duty trucks avoid diesels like the plague, because the economics just don’t pan out. Take a look at municipal/utility trucks; the smaller/medium ones that are newish are inevitably gas. And UPS’ new delivery vans are gas, replacing the diesel vans they used for quite a while.
Gas engines have improved their efficiency in the past decade or so, while diesels haven’t, and in some cases, are actually less so, due to the demanding US emission regs on diesels that went into effect in the past decade.
You’ll be surprised how many small cars (B-segment) are driving around with diesel engines. Every automaker offers one. The current Ford Fiesta for example comes with a 1.6 liter 4 cylinder diesel. The displacement of these diesels in small cars is somewhere between 1.2 and 1.6 liter.
All these little oil burners can easily do 45 to 50 mpg on average.
Personally I like the characteristics of modern diesels, regardless the size of the vehicle or the price difference between gasoline and, I quote Jeremy Clarkson, “the fuel of satan”.
I’m going on statistics. Diesel share of passenger cars in Europe is some 60+%, but it’s much higher as vehicle weight increases, and significantly lower in A and B Class cars, for the reasons I gave. And diesel share of the whole market is projected to decline in 2014, as a and B class cars make up a larger percentage of total sales, and CNG increases its share.
A good English-language resource to check out European models is http://www.parkers.co.uk. The new-car reviews confirm what Johannes said: Any carmaker not offering a Diesel there is handicapped in the market.
It seems that ea. European country has a different fuel-tax structure, so I’m not sure taxes make much more relative difference overall than stateside since Diesels seem universallly preferred. Maybe Paul’s remark about the overall higher fuel-tax basis as a fuel economy “multiplier” makes the most sense.
If you really want a Tea Party in America, try raising the Federal fuel tax to European levels. It’s the most rational way to reduce consumption, but it’ll never happen.
“Gas engines have improved their efficiency in the past decade or so, while diesels haven’t, and in some cases, are actually less so, due to the demanding US emission regs on diesels that went into effect in the past decade.”
This is not quite correct. Common rail + Turbo technology was barely introduced a decade ago. Audi kept TDI until just recently. In the last 10 years diesel tech has advanced at least as much as gas. Besides GDI what have we seen on gas?
You can’t count the hybrid cars in with gas because hybrid can (and will) be applied to diesels. That combo is probably more of a threat to electric cars than hydrogen.
People who aren’t knowledgeable about diesels (or prejudiced against them) leave out perhaps the most important point of all — a modern CDI + Turbo will blow away the gas in driving experience. Diesel sales were always strong in Europe because of the high cost of fuel but really took off about 8-10 years ago when the CDI came on in full force. They were more efficient AND FUN than before (and smoother and quieter). The opposite happened here with cars like the P**** and it’s no wonder so many young folks can’t get into cars.
The A/B segment diesels in Europe tend to lack turbo and therefore are not much fun to drive. Their pen rate hasn’t changed much over time.
In recent years R&D on diesels has had to go more towards emissions than performance/economy. One stupid reason for this is that the regs are very different between Europe and US.
Add to that how the EPA understates MPG on the diesels and how sulfur just recently came out of our diesel fuel (the CDIs can’t have sulfur to work) and it’s no wonder more manufacturers haven’t made the effort in the US.
Calibrick, you’re wrong. This is a subject I covered in depth at TTAC. The new downsized turbo gas engines have brought very substantial improvement is mileage, which is precisely why everyone is adopting them. The result is that the spread between gas and diesel engines is significantly narrower.
I could find examples all day long, but don’t have the time. here’s just one: a comparison of the 2000 Jetta and 2014 Jetta.
In 2000, the gas Jetta (1.8 turbo automatic) was rated at 21/28/24. The diesel was rated at 29/40/33.
In 2014, the gas (1.8 turbo) is rated at 24/36/29; the diesel at 20/42/34. Compared to the 2000 versions, the gas engine improved its mileage by 21%; the diesel by 3%.
I can see you’re a diesel lover, which is fine. But I’ve learned that arguing with folks who have more passion than facts is a bit of a waste of time.
If you spend some time researching, you’ll find that gas engines have made significant strides in improving their efficiencies and EPA numbers; not so diesels. There’s simply very little more efficiency to squeeze out of a diesel, but gas engines are approaching diesel efficiencies more and more. One good recent example: Mazda’s new Sky technology. Super-high compression ratios; no throttle, etc… The two technologies are converging.
In the US the 2007 and more so the 2010 diesel emissions standards hurt the fuel efficiency of diesels. There was a time when a diesel could get ~30% higher MPG and now that is down to ~20% as witnessed by your BMW example. One of the problems is regenerating that DPF, to do so means dumping fuel into the exhaust to burn off the particulate matter. That fuel dumped into the exhaust does nothing to contribute to making the vehicle move.
As far as the real world it goes both ways I know people who can beat the EPA estimates with their gas engines and others who can’t meet the estimate with their diesel.
Paul there is nothing to research on the small gas turbos. I absolutely adore driving them and the mileage is pretty decent for the overall performance but they absolutely suck gas if you try to drive them like a normal person. The EPA mileage figures on those are so overstated that I feel sorry for the poor folks who bought them expecting MPG. If you want to talk TTAC go over there and read all the comments about the new Ford turbos.
I’m glad they are around and the OEs (especially the domestics) are delighted but don’t tell me small gas turbos are a breakthrough technology when really just a loophole on the fuel economy requirements.
Poor diesel doesn’t stand a chance over here 🙁
@ Calibrick: exactly. The fuel efficiency of downsized turbo gasoline engines sucks in real life. About 30 mpg for a B-segment car with a small displacement turbo gasoline engine. Why ? Because you got to kick the hell out of it all day long to pick up and hold on to some speeeeddd….whereas the comparable diesel will get 45 to 50 mpg very easily, or as we say, “with two fingers in the nose”.
And yes, I’m a diesel addict. Since the day I was born. I love the rumble of a 6 cylinder diesel. And the kick in the back when accelerating from 50 to 100 mph while the shifter just stays in 5th gear. About the high-performance diesels I mentioned: several Audi diesel models come with quattro standard these days because FWD alone can’t handle the torque. I love the sound, I love the technology, I love the fuel efficiency and I especially love the way they drive in the real world.
In relation to the EPA estimates, I think a lot of people seriously misunderstand what is “highway” vs. “city” driving, and overestimate how much of their driving is actually “highway”. I’m looking at the splits for the Ecoboost Fusion and it’s like 22/37 – the vast majority of people are going to get something closer to the first number unless they live in the middle of nowhere and do nothing but a 10+ mile commute daily at constant speed.
But FWIW, diesels really don’t get such great mileage in local driving either, nor do large gas engines. Given the weight of most modern cars, something like a big, lazy gas four with a CVT is better suited to it, but hybrids are the absolute best. With a small gas turbo, you at least have the option of power or economy depending upon how much you want to baby it or beat on it. None of the manufacturers are going to come out and admit that, but the EPA ratings reflect it. They’re not ridiculously out of whack like they were years ago. And keep in mind that diesels and large naturally aspirated engines that match small gas turbos for power are just as much of a compromise, just in a different way.
Personally, there’s different things I like about all of them. For lots of highway miles, a diesel is tough to beat… but for almost all other scenarios, they don’t make much financial sense in the U.S. That said, does it even matter? The appeal isn’t limited to just fuel economy.
It should be mentioned that Volvo offered the non-turbo version of the inline 6 diesel in the 2-series cars prior to 1983, so they had actually joined the plugless party much earlier.
I test-drove one in the early 1990s (sans needle bearings in one of the driveline U-joints) and it was underwhelming (I’m qualified to state that as I also owned a 1981 Rabbit diesel and a 1985 Nissan 720 diesel pickup).
Ah the Volvo 740. From a quick glance it looks like the oldest car in that parking lot by at least 15 years, so typical. You are right the 740 + a diesel engine should have been a dream car, but wasn’t. Even as collectors’ cars they don’t seem that popular with the brick crowd. I’m guessing because the engine is from VW not Volvo and in terms of longevity and fuel economy (with the M46 at least) the red block is as good or better than the diesel without the noise, smoke and slowness.
That boxy greenhouse was dubbed “American Styling” by European reviewers, not sure if it was meant as derisive. But I think it holds up well.
I bet the Volvo Diesel would’ve done all right stateside since there seem to be many “Volvo Survivalists” here, folks who own them long-term.
“American Styling”. I think mainly because of the vertical rear window, like a lot of US cars had in the eighties, mostly the ones from GM if I recall correctly.
Plenty of these 6 cylinder diesel Volvos still around. The only serious alternative to a Mercedes W124 5 or 6 cylinder turbo diesel back then. In terms of a durable and well-built car, capable of towing trailers every day without falling apart after a few years.
It’s pretty obvious here, if you drive more than say 20,000 miles a year or if you have to tow trailers you go for the diesel. Apart from that, I love the smell of a diesel in the morning….especially the ones with 5, 6, 8, 10 or 12 cylinders.
Yes it was the upright “formal” rear window that made it look American to some folks. I remember being bothered by the shape of the C-pillar, like it was squeezed in there. I guess Volvo was too because they changed that area with the 940 but after that the sedan lost its charm.
Some of that look came from commonizing the rear doors between the sedan and wagon and compromising the sedan styling to make it work. Usually it was the wagon styling that got compromised like on an Accord wagon. I absolutely love the look of the 740 sedan now.
Now that I think about it the front end, at least with the US headlights, looked very American too. You rarely saw other Euro makes go with the four rectangles and never with the parking lights underneath which is pure GM.
Looks American only for the American market in that case though. Euro 740’s had big rectangular composites from the start instead of the quad-lamp fascia we got. The indicators were wraparound rather than underneath the lamps. Once composites became legal here and the 740 got a refresh in ’88 or ’89, the US and Euro models looked very similar.
The only 740 Diesel I have ever seen in the metal was at the local junk yard and it was the same color. Those Volvo diesels seem to be rare compared with the Benz diesels.
Sees like a credible alternative to the W126 300SD. The old OM617 made 125hp and 185 ft lbs. from 3 liters. This engine must use more boost, or perhaps just breathes better. Unfortunately now that the cars are 30 years old, finding parts for the Volvo would be kind of tricky but junkyards abound with old Mercedes…
Funny is that the first Mercedes S-class in Europe with a diesel was the W140, the successor of the W126. At that time a diesel in a top-model was “not done”, quite literally. And now they all got them, even Jaguar, Porsche and Maserati.
That surprises me. There were plenty of W126 diesels over here and it’s not uncommon to see a 300SD/SDL still on the road. I suppose it was a public expectation matter.
Really? It makes sense, but that’s shocking! Coincidentally, I believe that the W140 was also the last S-class to have a diesel available in the U.S.
But prior to that, even the last year or two of W116 production had the 5-cyl diesel available here. The only oil burner I’ve ever logged serious seat time in was a W126 300SD on a road trip through the Catskill Mountains and it was a religious experience.
So your last was our first…The W140 S 350 turbo diesel with the OM603.97 engine. These days a diesel in a high-end sedan is fully accepted. With stunning performance, like Audi’s A8 4.2 TDI.
Johannes wasn’t that 3.5L engine nicknamed the rod bender? It’s true you could only get the 116 and 126 S-class with a diesel in the states, not Europe. These were all turbos and were called 300SD and 300SDL but I think there was a 350SDL at the end.
MB introduced the 5-cyl TD on the 116 as an extreme measure to deal with the sudden change in buying habits by the Americans. The S-class with the V8 got horrible gas mileage. Prior to that the 5-cyl, which I believed was developed for the US, went into the smaller 114 and 123 as the 300D and 300D Turbo Diesel. These were new lines and complemented the 220/240D that had always been there. Those were thrifty but too slow with an A/T and A/C.
The world events of 1973 affected Europe too but gas was always expensive there and MB had lower spec cars for that market we never got. There wasn’t as drastic a change in buying habits and I guess that’s why the 116 and 126 never got the diesel over there. Maybe they were trying to keep the S-class more premium I don’t know.
Interestingly the 124 did not get a diesel in the US until 1987 and it was a 6-cylinder turbo. That was one year only. In ’90 a 2.5L 5-cylinder turbo was introduced and in ’94 that changed to a 6-cylinder non-turbo DOHC. All of these 124s are highly sought after and incredibly hard to find.
My mom had a used ’78 300SD when we were growing up. That car is what made me such a huge diesel fan, maybe even earlier than there were fans in Europe. There was nothing like it.
Never heard of the rod bender nickname. Head gasket problems ? I must say I only knew exactly ONE person who had a W140 350 TD, some 20 years ago. An elderly man, a proud W-Der Kathedral-140 owner.
Peugeot and Mercedes were the (car) diesel pioneers. Direct injection and later common rail injection, a turbo was already the norm by then, gave the diesels good performance. Both introduced by Fiat by the way.
Yeah, but unlike the W126 with the same engine, they didn’t sell many of them. The 90s were the darkest of days for diesel passenger cars in the U.S. – at one point it was down to only the VW Golf/Jetta TDI and W210 E300. They’re still only a small niche even now, but they’ve increased in popularity considerably since then, especially since they’ve been able to meet the stricter California emissions standards that prevented them from being sold new in many states.
The V8 TDI and the old V12 in the Q7 that was derived from the Le Mans cars are so friggen cool – I don’t know if they’re really all that practical but they’re cool as hell! Audi does sell the A8 with a TDI V6 here, which is no slouch and still gets very impressive mileage.
I just can’t get enough of this kind of videos….
calibrick – I just saw one of those W124 turbodiesels parked on the street on Monday. It had the slats in the fenders and I forget if that pegs it as an early or late version. Old Mercedes diesels in NYC are like Volvo 240s in Eugene.
EDIT: Also, the 3.5l diesel in the W126 did have some massive problem, the nature of which I can’t remember at the moment, but they probably had it sorted out by the time the W140 debuted. They’d been around for awhile by that point.
Johanness: Most Americans and it seems many of the posters here are clueless about how well modern diesels perform. If they knew there would be more fans, right?
Sean: On the 126 it went from 2.5 5-cyl turbo, to 3.0L 6-cyl turbo to 3.5L 6-cyl turbo in the final year IIRC. I believe that 3.5L was the one with the nickname rod bender but I think they got that sorted for the 140.
The slots on the 124 are hard to remember but I believe the 3.0L 6-cyl turbo (in ’87, shared with 126) was slotless. The 2.5L and DOHC non-turbo for sure had slots.
Calibrick, It must be hard, knowing you’re the only one that is right, among a sea of the ignorant. What a burden to carry. If only people would open their eyes, and see the real truth, we could all live in Diesel Nirvana.
A girl I knew had one of these in high school, I believe a 1985. I recall riding shotgun, and during a rather spirited acceleration run (presumably full throttle), the Volvo belched an impressive cloud of black soot in our wake.
At the time, I was driving a BMW 524td. It thus follows that my high school parking lot was, for a brief time, a rather impressive locale for obscure diesel CCs!!
A friend’s mother drove a Volvo 240 diesel with a manual transmission when I was a child. Loved that car; it was a GL, with power windows, leather and a manual sunroof. They summered in Maine, and one year the Volvo did not make the return trip.
Do not know if the curvy font is factory or not, but I have seen it on other Volvos of this vintage.
It is factory, used to ’85 on the 700 Series. Starting in ’86, the more squared-off font replaced it. I should know, I have the brochures. 🙂
I’m in the U.k and still run a Volvo 940 turbo diesel with the d24 vw engine. 21 years old and 260,000 miles on it. It’s my second diesel Volvo.
This engine is remarkably long lived, but it does not tolerate neglect and needs to be understood. Aside from the timing belts (2 of) needing to be changed at the proper intervals- and it’s a big job needing special tools- they need 5000 mile oil changes with decent semi synthetic oil, proper ratio of antifreeze, and it’s vital not to work them hard straight from cold as that’s what causes the heads to crack.
Get a good one and look after it and they just run and run. It’s a pleasant sounding engine, diesel clatter mixed with straight six thrum with a hint of turbo whistle.
To drive, it’s very much an old fashioned turbo diesel. You floor it,nothing happens for a moment while the turbo spools up, then the power is delivered in a solid surge. But keep it in the right rev band and it’s not a slow car by any means, it’ll do over 100 if you are so inclined and is capable of 35-40 m.p.g. As an added bonus it’s quite happy running on waste cooking oil, too.