(first posted 8/18/2016) Although I virtually exhausted myself of everything I could possibly say regarding the Volvo 900 Series earlier this year, this 1993 Volvo 940 sitting all alone on the outskirts of one of the South Shore Plaza’s parking lot presented the ideal photo op, as if it were posing for a CC photo shoot. The car along with the location also brought a wave of nostalgia over me, as these Volvos were seemingly the quintessential vehicle of my hometown, and the South Shore Plaza was my local indoor shopping mall, and someplace I rarely visit in this day and age.
Produced for nine models years (1990-1998), the Volvo 900 Series was essentially a re-engineered and mildly restyled version of its predecessor, the 700 Series, which first went on sale in 1982. 900 Series cars featured more aerodynamic sheetmetal that included rounder quarter panels and bumpers, a higher deck lid, and a new roofline for an ever-so less boxy look. It could just be this car’s color combination and wheels, but there is something highly classy and dignified about the 940’s clean lines and overall simplicity.
Perhaps those very qualities are indicative of why Volvo was the default choice in vehicle for so many residents of my childhood hometown. Elegant and luxurious, yet understated and unpretentious, owning a Volvo was a sign that one was comfortably middle-class or even wealthier, but didn’t need a three-pointed star or wreath-and-crest to display their wealth. Of course in doing this, Volvos themselves became somewhat of their own status symbol among the Milton elite, and for this reason alone, my own mom never warmed up to Volvo during the time that we lived there. But I digress.
Much like the 740 and 760 before, Volvo’s largest car was divided into two model ranges, the 940 and 960. The higher-end 960 received a few more upgrades over the years, including a new modular 2.9L inline-6, redesigned interior, and revised exterior styling, while the 940 made greater use of existing 740 engines and other components throughout its tenure. Wagons further made use of 700 Series parts, staying mostly true to original form through the 900 Series’ end.
All 940s were powered by one of three versions of Volvo’s 2.3L “Red Block” inline-4. In base form, this engine was a single overhead camshaft design, producing 114 horsepower and 136 lb-ft of torque. Available for 1991-only was a dual overhead cam, 16-valve version, making 153 horsepower and 150 lb-ft torque. 940 Turbos added a turbocharger to the former, bringing output to 162 horsepower and 195 lb-ft of torque.
The turbo was clearly the choice for those who wanted a bit more pep in their unassuming Swedish box, bringing zero-to-sixty time down to 8.8 seconds, tying it with the 960 as Volvo’s quickest large car. Although other European cars of similar size offered greater performance (in both raw power and handling characteristics), Volvo has rightfully never marketed itself as a performance brand, even in more recent years with its R-Design and Polestar-tuned models.
(1993 Volvo 940 Turbo)
As with the later-year 740 and 760 models, respectively, some North American-spec 940s featured a blunter, more vertical nose, while the 960 used a slightly more backswept nose, with the headlights extended inward to meet the grille, resulting in the main visual difference between 940 and 960 models. Of course, Volvo made things a bit confusing for 1993 and 1994, when 940 Turbo models used the 960’s front end design, while regular 940 used the blunter design after 1992, bringing it more in line with the new 850.
Despite this, differences between the 940 and 960 were marginal, and 940s could be equipped to the same levels of luxury as the 960, although this wasn’t usually the case. As the “entry-level” big Volvo, 940s were much more commonly found with cloth seats and black interior trim (like this previously featured 940 wagon), and not leather and wood trim.
However, this car doesn’t just feature woodgrain trim on the dash, but wood veneer door inserts in the place of the usual cloth — something I’ve never seen on a U.S.-spec 940 before, and only in pictures of European-spec 900 Series. Note the screw holes and indentation left by the now removed cellular “car phone” – #throwbackthursday.
Rear seat passengers were treated to similar levels of comfort as up front, although leg room does look a little tight from this angle. The sheer amount of glass, a result of the low beltlines and upright greenhouse, dates this design back to the 1980s as much as the car’s boxy shape does. Seriously, those beltlines are so low that it almost (almost) makes a case for rear opera windows for a bit more privacy.
The 940 was quietly dropped from Volvo’s U.S. lineup after 1995, now that the smaller 850 had comfortably settled in. Along with the 960, which was facelifted for 1995 and remained being sold in the U.S., 940 and 960 production continued through the 1998 model year (being renamed “S90” in its final year). By this point, over 1.5 million 900 Series cars had been produced since 1990, adding to the 700 Series cars’ production of over 1.4 million, for total production of just under 3 million cars between 1982-1998. With its discontinuation, the 900 Series officially marked the end of over 70 years of rear-wheel drive passenger cars for Volvo.
As a result of their sheer omnipresence, staid styling, and the fact that no one under the age of 40 seemed to own one, I never had much appreciation for these cars as a kid. But in more recent years I’ve grown to develop a certain fondness for these simple Swedish boxes, and finding a true gem like this one gives me some greater insight as to why these were such an “it car” with upper-middle class Bostonian suburbia in the 1990s.
Related Reading:
The 940 fascia with the headlights meeting the grille reminds me of the 1987-88 Mercury Cougar.
I love the wood door inserts.
One of the first cars I remember from my childhood was a 1995 or so 960 in a brochure. The interior looked so inviting with cushy leather seats.
I think these have aged very well. Love the 700 and 900 Volvos!
Great article B
Never was a big fan, but I can appreciate the unique characteristics of this era of Volvos. With the leather and wood, I wouldn’t kick it out of my driveway. Or in other words, I’d throw on my old suede elbow patch jacket and drive the hell out of it!
The funny thing about trying to have “unpretentious” luxury is that it becomes its own form of pretentiousness, sometimes more obnoxiously so than the supposedly overtly pretentious luxury. I remember the sort of people who would have generally driven a new Volvo or Saab from this era in my neck of the woods. Let’s just say “unpretentious” isn’t exactly the word that springs to mind to describe them.
Unless you took a vow of poverty, or people think you do because of your state in life, I say drive whatever you want and more importantly-own it. No need for BS excuses and justifications.
A excellent observation. It’s like studied casualness: If you have to work at it, it ain’t so casual.
I tend to think of Volvos of this era as Midwestern cars, although I suppose that probably also went for more affluent areas of New England, upstate New York, and the Pacific Northwest. My observation of them has been that they went to people who once upon a time would have bought a Buick LeSabre or maybe an Olds 98, also sort of tied to a Midwestern (and by extension largely Scandinavian or German) sense of middle-class values. Middle-class and upper-middle-class Midwesterners, when I lived there, were always terribly worried about decorum — it wasn’t about avoiding the appearance of pretentiousness so much as not making a spectacle of yourself in some socially disapproved way.
I agree with Ate-Up-With-Motor; these Volvos always seemed to me to be the ‘Oldsmobiles’ of their generation; a stylistically understated symbol of middle class success. I believe that Olds lost their status because GM lowered prices on them in the mid 70’s and suddenly the Olds Cutlass was the best-selling car in America. Sure, Olds cashed in for a few years, but the magic was gone…and proved impossible to recover.
But what happened to Volvo? They lost their mojo somehow, and Lexus took their place, but…why?
What happened to Volvo Cars is that 2015 was their record year. They sold 503,127 cars, more than any previous year in its 89 year history. And that’s without these new babies:
+1
“But what happened to Volvo? They lost their mojo somehow, and Lexus took their place, but…why?”
Jac Nasser bought them and tainted them with his ‘Premier Auto Group’ debacle. They’re only now beginning to shed the bad odor from that.
That’s the truth. What a load of BS that bunch was selling! Ruined a great franchise with their crackpot schemes, and simultaneously taking their eye off the quality ball really hurt Volvo’s reputation.
The magic went away as they were allowed to wither on the vine during the later years of Ford ownership, in my opinion. The S80 was stylish but never a paragon of reliability, and then both it and the S60 went way too long between updates–the 2nd-gen S80 was the same, save for a freshening of the nose, for 11 years. That worked for Volvo in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s, but in today’s market with consumers with a collective case of ADD, that doesn’t work. Plus the market is diverging and there isn’t really room for a low-premium, near-luxury, quiet-status brand like the traditional Volvo anymore. You can see in their newer offerings that they’re moving more towards Mercedes/Audi territory, which they probably had to do to survive.
Also they soldiered on with only the XC90 as their SUV entrant for the longest time, hoping that the AWD-wagon XC70 would make up for the lack of a smaller SUV/CUV. Not so much, it turns out (though they did sell a decent number of XC70s I think most went to folks who were shopping for a wagon anyway and wanted AWD.)
Brendan,
This is a very good find you have here. As one of CC’s resident Volvo enthusiasts I figured I would chime in with a few thoughts about this 940.
If I had to venture a guess, this particular example that you found is likely pushing 200k miles or is well beyond that mark already. And true to form, neither the engine nor transmission have been rebuilt or replaced, a testament to the quality that Volvo instilled into these components. The base redblock engine, known as the B230F, did indeed make 114 horsepower – not enough for those with a heavy foot, but adequate for the Volvo faithful who wanted as little fuss as possible. This engine was also found in the legendary 240 Series, whose final year of production was 1993. The only transmission offered in the 940, both NA (naturally aspirated) and turbo, was the AW70L 4-speed automatic with lockup converter, hence the L. This is basically the same transmission found in Toyota pickups and 4Runners, so it is a very strong, heavy-duty unit.
You mentioned the dual-cam, 16-valve engine offered only for 1991 – this was the B234F. This powerplant is very sensitive to timing belt replacements, which have to be done every 40k miles on the dot. I don’t recommend early 960s (1992-94) to any first-time Volvo buyer for the same reason, except that their B6304 engines, or 2.9-liter inline-6, need timing belts replaced every 30k for ’92 models, and at 50k intervals for ’93 and ’94 cars. On both the B234F and B6304, if the belt breaks while you are driving, the engine is instantly destroyed due to the valves and pistons smashing into one another. The joys of interference engines.
Used 740s and 940s are still plentiful on the market and make a great first car for the novice driver, provided it has been well-maintained. Unlike the aforementioned engines, neither the B230F or B230FT (turbo engine) will self-destruct if the timing belt breaks – if it does, it just stops the car and you can install a new belt on the side of the road if you have to. I did it with a ’91 740 I once owned.
To me, this car represents the pinnacle of RWD Volvo technology. The basic 940s share the same drivetrain as the 240s, but they ride smoother and are quieter than its older sibling. They also do not rust as badly as the 240 due to less crevices that trap water, moisture and other crud.
Here is a picture of my 1989 740 GL. It has the basic B230F engine with AW70L 4-speed automatic, and has gone 118k miles thus far.
B230F got the AW71L, but the B230FT (Turbo) got the AW71, without the lockup. B234 16-valve got the AW72, a slightly re-ratio’d AW71L. I think the first couple of years had the ZF transmission as an option (if there’s a “3” on the shifter, it’s a ZF) along with the 760. They were notorious in BMW’s and Volvos for grenading if revved in neutral. The pump is on the back of the transmission. Some shops refused to emissions test them as a result due to liability.
The early 6-cylinders should be avoided due to porous block castings, although I think at this point they’ve all failed and are out of circulation.
Nice 740! Sad to say I don’t see many of them around anymore. In fact, only the 1995-1998 960/S90s are the only 700/900 Series cars that are somewhat common, all things considered. Glad to know this beautiful color 740 is entrusted in your care!
Speak of the devil, look what I saw on my way to work this morning. The CC Effect strikes again!
That’s a 1989, since it has the notorious B234F 16-valve engine but the old taillights (and sealed-beams in the front)! I haven’t seen one of those in ages, but my father had one from 1996-2001 (that my grandmother bought new in 1989). Good car overall, though I think the timing belt let go at some point. Luckily, it happened just as the car was starting, and he claims* the damage wasn’t too severe. He had it fixed (*don’t know what the repair bill was) and kept driving it for a few more years. It probably had close to 200K and a few issues (air conditioning) when he decided to donate it and lease a new S60.
Also, it had the same alloy wheels (Rigel) as the burgundy car a few posts above.
The transmission sounds like the Aisin-Warner also used in Isuzu trucks and SUVs, Supras, and (probably its best-known and most prolific application) the 1987-2001 Jeep Cherokee. (Toyota called it the A340, Jeep the AW-4.)
Did the 940/960 ever get a standard shift in the US?
I’ve always thought these 7 and 9 series were styled purposely to be a bridge to the 8 series….they look almost like Volvo’s answer to the Chevy Celebrity.
Quite a change from the sane, sensible Volvo’s before this one.
BUT:
A same year Mercury Grand Marquis did “Dignified Luxury” more reliably and less expensively.
The Grand Marquis is NO comparison to the 700/900 series in innovation or reliability. C’mon, man.
The Volvo would embarass it as a true driver’s car, especially around corners. The Grand Marquis has more roll than Jack Sparrow’s pirate ship.
Out dated Panther platform dating back to the 70s, plus Ford’s notorious rear ended fireball scenarios.
Yes, the Pinto wasn’t the only Ford that that happened to, google the numerous Crown Vics ending up that way.
If someone wanted to do a museum exhibit regarding “timeless design” these cars should be somewhere with the hall.
Or maybe outside in the parking lot?
🙂
Exactly why when I saw the wagon I had driven past admiring for two weeks go up for sale I made sure to toss the sign in the back when I went to look at it until I had enough to get it. Nice to see someone with a shared opinion.
“940 and 960 production continued through the 1998 model year (being renamed “S90” in its final year). ”
Minor correction, Brendan. In 1998, the sedan became the S90, while the wagon (vagen?) became the V90.
Don’t worry Evan, I’m aware of the V90. I just didn’t feel it pertinent to bring up, as I only mentioned the wagons in one sentence of this article.
A college girlfriend had one of these, a 940 Turbo with the 960-esque nose, briefly. (Actually she had it for some time, she got rid of me shortly after the 940 showed up.) Definitely a nice car and, befitting Volvo, very well-built; it had approaching 200k on the odometer but you’d never know by the condition it was in.
Volvo definitely followed a “don’t fix what ain’t broke” theme with their interior as well as exterior styling, too. The pictured cabin is very, very similar to my ’88 780, and consequently also very similar to the initial 700-series interior back in ’84. But it was well laid-out, clean, and functional, so why mess with it? (And it’s not as extreme as Ford in that area–Crown Vics had essentially the same interior from ’95 all the way to the end of the line in ’11.)
So the “don’t fix what ain’t broke” policy was laudatory for Volvo….but not for Ford?
Ford did have a instrument panel/dashboard change and various fabric and door panel changes during the last generation’s run.
It’s all subjective, but I strongly prefer the Volvo’s interior. Better layout, higher quality materials, cleaner design, better ergonomics. Then again I’ve stared at that Ford dash for a combined 9 years between my Marauder and my Crown Vic, so perhaps I’m just tired of it.
I’ve seen the IP change (my parents have a ’10 Grand Marquis) but it didn’t change the look of the dash overall, just the gauges. The large digital MPH readout is handy though. I couldn’t tell you what’s different about the door panel between the ’97, ’03, and ’10 examples. It just wasn’t a fantastic design to begin with, very broad and flat, and then it was barely touched for 17 solid years!
*I will give them credit for consistently comfortable seats, particularly the wide buckets in the Marauder.
Opinions, like your gas mileage, WILL vary!
Having owned both (Volvo & Ford/Mercury/Lincoln) I prefer the interior, engine peppiness & reliability and lower frequency of repair/lower cost of repair of the FoMoCo cars.
You say toh-matt-tohh, I say tomato.
🙂
Regarding reliability and repair cost–I’m with you there, there’s a reason the Crown Vic is the daily driver. The Volvo is just a more pleasant place to spend time. Or will be, once I repair the issues that have kept it parked for a while (case in point!)
Engine peppiness is a non-issue, both the 2V 4.6 and the PRV 2.8 go about things in a somewhat leisurely fashion. At least they’re faster than a diesel Benz. 🙂
Perhaps time has dimmed my memory? I recall the Volvos being irritatingly sluggish & slow with slush box automatic transmissions and the 4 cylinder model having an unpleasant agricultural rumble to it when stomped hard. The V6 Volvo was smoother but not that much faster.
None of my Panther based cars have earned the above description. I recall them varying from “Real World” peppy (’95 Grand Marquis) to quite quick (first year Marauder). My current panther, a ’05 Town Car, is some where between the two. It is a MOST “Real World” satisfying car to drive and ride in. NO mechanical issues in it’s almost 12 year life!
Opinions, like gas mileage, can vary.
I suspect a 940 turbo would give your Marauder a run for its money, at least to 60, and I say this as a huge fan of Panther cars. (I drive a 2011 CVPI.)
Note that a V6 Accord will dust the heavy, under-geared Marauder. =(
Under-geared.
John has hit on what I personally view as the achieves heel of the later Panthers.
My 1995 Grand Marquis, even with the lowest horespower output (190?) of all the Panthers, felt the peppiest in “Real World” driving conditions.
It is my theory that FoMoCo, in a quest for the highest EPA mileage numbers possible, changed the final drive/rear end gearing ratios to numbers that looked good on paper but strangled these cars for stop and go driving.
Wow, you’re a lil too defensive over any comment over Fords, cut it out, you sound like a Ford fanboy whose Taurus shit the bed.
Fords cars can’t compete in the REAL world, that’s why sadly, they only make the Mustang. Last I checked Volvo still offers family sedans. Does Ford?
No one buys OR likes them. Stop trying to steal the spotlight in Brendan’s Volvo article.
I own 2 Fords…Both Fox bodies(88 Ford Mustang 5.0 notchback, 86 Mercury Cougar LS), but I also own 1 Volvo(94 Volvo 940 Turbo wagon). All are great, all have their quirks.
No need to get high blood pressure over an inanimate object, last I checked YOUR name wasn’t on Ford’s sponsorship list.
Humor.
Speaking from the east side of the Atlantic, Volvos are a European equivalent of Buick. When you see a loaded 960 wagon with leather and chrome trim you see a car for upper middle class people. Mercedes’ E-class was never so opulent or plush. Neither was the 5-series. In upper trim levels the 900 had no obvious competitor. The plainer 900s competed with the Opel Omega (a bit austere), XM estate (too wierd) and Ford Scorpio (not as “classy”). In both cases they ruled their roost. Sneering at them for their practicality always seemed a bit dim. Lovely cars.
Upper trim levels 900 competitors – maybe the contemporary Lancia Thema and Saab 9000, and in the early nineties the Opel Senator was still around. Although the Saab and Opel were never available as a wagon.
Opulent, plush, not austere, not too weird, classy: the contemporary Lancia Thema SW.
Another thing to add confusion – the 760 and 960 got a different dash from the 740/940 interiors shown. Some 940 turbos got the 760/960 grille and headlights, with those inboard lights being fog lights, not blinkers like on the Cougar. At the end of the 940 run in 94/95, it was a total mishmash of what front end they used on the car. Some 940s got the 960 nose in 94, some not. Some turbos got blacked out grilles, some got chrome. It could be any combo.
There was also the one-year-only 940SE in 1991, which was literally a 960 with a B230FT turbo 4. They didn’t have the 6-cylinder ready yet! The 6 had some teething problems with porous block castings in the first two years. It’d spring a coolant leak at random. That engine was built with help from Porsche.
The 95 960 refresh got not only a new exterior, but also a much better fully independent suspension. Earlier independent suspensions in the 760/960 were decidedly harsh and used Nivomat self-leveling shocks in the rear. They got together with the Germans again for the refresh and fitted the 850 suspension to the 960 and included a fiberglass transverse spring. It rode MUCH better after that. Funny enough, the later 960 cars used wheels with a front-drive offset, not a rear drive, even though the car was always rear drive.
I recently purchased a one owner 1993 940s for my 17 year old daughter. It was a one owner car my neighbor had since new and well maintained and garaged its entire life. It has 140K on the clock and I picked it up for $1500.
It is the first Volvo we have owned and I have to say what a pleasant surprise the car is. I really enjoy driving it with the exception of the limited (to me) headroom in the car. I have never driven a car with a tighter turning radius. It is quiet, comfortable and safe.
I bought it because it has ABS and airbags and is the perfect first car for a new driver. This is a pic of it with my son’s Jeep Grand Cherokee across the street. No new cars for either kid!
I paid the same for my 93 wagon. It’s a pleasure to drive.
this time with a photo
I was in Ireland in 1995 with my ex. He was very fussy and when we made our car reservation before we left the USA he was adamant with the agency he wanted a Mercedes rental.
When we arrived we were given an 8 Series Volvo (can’t recall the full number) He was incensed. They told us they would do the best they could but for now it’s the Volvo.
I usually did 99% of the driving, so I don’t know why it was so important, but for some reason it was.
So, I drove the Volvo and a few days later he got his wish, and we traded the Volvo for an E class Mercedes.
All around, in every way, the Volvo was the better car.
He only got behind the wheel of the Mercedes once and when he did…he wrecked it. Oops!
Similar to the time we were in Canada, and he wanted a Lincoln Town Car, and they gave us a Cadillac Sedan Deville. (Again, the Cadillac was the better car) and a few days later we received the Lincoln TC…and he drove it into a very deep ditch.
Volvo 850, introduced in 1991.