• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

Looking at an early 960: run away? (2025 bump, I didn't) - dumb part questions edition

I would drive a 1995-98 9 series before ruling one out. They are by far the nicest Volvo of that era. The Mk2 IRS rides smooth as glass and the cars handle really well because of the new suspension design. The are so quiet you can actually hear the stereo without have to spend 20-30 hours and $$ installing dynamat throughout the interior. They also get good fuel mileage. As high as 28 mpg on the highway. Oh, and super comfortable seats, cold AC, you know, everything lacking in a 240 is standard on a 960/S90/V90.
 
2manyturbos said:
I would drive a 1995-98 9 series before ruling one out. They are by far the nicest Volvo of that era. The Mk2 IRS rides smooth as glass and the cars handle really well because of the new suspension design. The are so quiet you can actually hear the stereo without have to spend 20-30 hours and $$ installing dynamat throughout the interior. They also get good fuel mileage. As high as 28 mpg on the highway. Oh, and super comfortable seats, cold AC, you know, everything lacking in a 240 is standard on a 960/S90/V90.
Click to expand...
All of this is true.

It takes away from the vintage daily charm a bit, but it’s still square and right wheel drive.
 
leecatd8209 said:
All of this is true.

It takes away from the vintage daily charm a bit, but it’s still square and right wheel drive.
Click to expand...
I didn't like the 95-98 960 either until I drove one for awhile. Same thing with a 740. I was 140/240 focused until I helped my sister sell her 1990 740 Turbo. You could hardly give those cars away in 2006. She had one in excellent condition that I wasn't going to just give away. It took almost a year to find the right buyer for it. During that time I drove it here and there to keep it up. I came to the conclusion I can't see the outside when I'm in the driver's seat and it drives so nice compared to a 2 series. Comfortable seats, ice cold AC, smooth ride compared to a 240, out handles even a modified 240. It grew on me. I still didn't like the looks of the super boxy 7 series sedan, however, I realized how refined they were compared to a 2 series. My daily drivers became a 940 T wagon and a 940T sedan.
 
2manyturbos said:
I didn't like the 95-98 960 either until I drove one for awhile. Same thing with a 740. I was 140/240 focused until I helped my sister sell her 1990 740 Turbo. You could hardly give those cars away in 2006. She had one in excellent condition that I wasn't going to just give away. It took almost a year to find the right buyer for it. During that time I drove it here and there to keep it up. I came to the conclusion I can't see the outside when I'm in the driver's seat and it drives so nice compared to a 2 series. Comfortable seats, ice cold AC, smooth ride compared to a 240, out handles even a modified 240. It grew on me. I still didn't like the looks of the super boxy 7 series sedan, however, I realized how refined they were compared to a 2 series. My daily drivers became a 940 T wagon and a 940T sedan.
Click to expand...
I put 100k miles on my 240 and while I miss it, the V90 I’ve had for two years now is far and away a significantly better car to daily drive.

Mine doesn’t get great gas mileage though. I know it needs a thermostat, but it also hasn’t bothered me enough to chase after it.
 
leecatd8209 said:
I put 100k miles on my 240 and while I miss it, the V90 I’ve had for two years now is far and away a significantly better car to daily drive.

Mine doesn’t get great gas mileage though. I know it needs a thermostat, but it also hasn’t bothered me enough to chase after it.
Click to expand...
It's news to me that you have a V90. They are my favorite car for a daily driver for all the reasons I stated above.
 
2manyturbos said:
I would drive a 1995-98 9 series before ruling one out. They are by far the nicest Volvo of that era.
Click to expand...
I did get to drive a late S90 (and liked it), but I'm still being really picky about the front ends on them. I much prefer the earlier cars with the integrated fogs. Looks more retro and less Ford Crown Victoria to me.
 
jmiles said:
The one thing I am curious about are the transmissions in the early 90s 960s.
Specifically the 1993 wagons.
Click to expand...
AFAIK in North American markets they were all AW30-40 automatics, which got used in some Toyotas I believe. I'm also finding old forum posts that state AW30-40LE and AW30-43LEs as possible alternatives?

We're talking about the same wagon here :lol:
 
I owned a 96 964. I had to do the headgasket and replace the cylinder head due to corrosion. I would make sure the coolant is nice and green and not dirty, rusty, low, old, etc.

The Park/Neutral switches go out on these and you get a flashing up arrow on the cluster.

The transmissions aren't as bulletproof as an AW71. They eventually seem to go out after normal use.

My dash vents would cut out on acceleration due to some vacuum leak in the dash.

I developed a misfire and sold it. It probably just needed a coil.
 
had mine for a couple years, survived two accidents, put almost 40k miles on it at this point (at 190k total) and all it's needed is a fuel pump. AC went out which sucks where I live, havent ever been able to quite sort that. but it always turns on and runs well.
 
My brother bought a '97 wagon for $300 that had been used by a handyman for a few years. He changed the timing belt and replaced maybe a single ignition coil and then daily drove it for five (I think) years without ever doing maintenance to it again other than oil changes. He sold it for $400. I admit that, at times, I think about selling my 940 turbo and getting the more refined and adult car, a V90.
 
Well, it's been a year and a half and I didn't feel like opening a third 960 thread, so maybe it makes sense to bump this one.

So in a weird turn of events I now own that green '93 960 and I'm more seriously fishing around for information.

It's already been established that as time went on, Volvo improved the timing/tensioning bits and managed to eek more miles out of a timing belt - can all those late parts be retrofitted to an "early" engine without a lot of work? The B6304 in mine is apparently not on its first cylinder head, so I'm thinking more seriously about upgrading to the S/V90 belt setup if it's even possible.

Is it as simple as just getting a kit for a later car, and bolting that tensioner on, using the new water pump and the new style pulley? Or am I about to be drilling and tapping an engine block?
 
I don't think it's just down to the belt/tensioner style. I think it has (at least partially) something to do with turning a stiffer valve train. Or the harmonics the belt makes.

I've changed, probably a thousand white block timing belts. Factory belts. The 4, 5 and 6 cylinders used the same PN back in the day (just belt). But the 4 cylinders you could see them cracking as low as 30k km. The 6 lasted a little longer at say 50k km. But the 5 would last 160k and rarely crack. These would use the same tensioners, idlers and water pump. So I'm not sold that it has to do with the belt/components. (I'm not saying they all would crack that early, but that's when he started really inspecting because we started finding them cracking really early).

All of this is sort of moot anyways. Those belts are a 20 minute job once you've done it. It's extremely easy to do. No special tools really needed (air is nice).
 
GTJordan said:
I don't think it's just down to the belt/tensioner style. I think it has (at least partially) something to do with turning a stiffer valve train. Or the harmonics the belt makes.

I've changed, probably a thousand white block timing belts. Factory belts. The 4, 5 and 6 cylinders used the same PN back in the day (just belt). But the 4 cylinders you could see them cracking as low as 30k km. The 6 lasted a little longer at say 50k km. But the 5 would last 160k and rarely crack. These would use the same tensioners, idlers and water pump. So I'm not sold that it has to do with the belt/components. (I'm not saying they all would crack that early, but that's when he started really inspecting because we started finding them cracking really early).

All of this is sort of moot anyways. Those belts are a 20 minute job once you've done it. It's extremely easy to do. No special tools really needed (air is nice).
Click to expand...
The early 960 used smaller sprockets, the same size as a 5 cylinder. The 95+ ones used larger sprockets and a much wider belt, which carried over to the RN/P2 engines. The water pump pulley size also changed.
I think that's part of the reason they had such a low interval early on. Too small of a belt drive.
AFAIK, you can take the crank sprocket, cam sprockets and water pump for a late 960 and bolt them up with the wide later belt.
 
Hardly a weird turn of events - we knew you’d end up with it.

fatcatbestcat said:
Well, it's been a year and a half and I didn't feel like opening a third 960 thread, so maybe it makes sense to bump this one.

So in a weird turn of events I now own that green '93 960 and I'm more seriously fishing around for information.

It's already been established that as time went on, Volvo improved the timing/tensioning bits and managed to eek more miles out of a timing belt - can all those late parts be retrofitted to an "early" engine without a lot of work? The B6304 in mine is apparently not on its first cylinder head, so I'm thinking more seriously about upgrading to the S/V90 belt setup if it's even possible.

Is it as simple as just getting a kit for a later car, and bolting that tensioner on, using the new water pump and the new style pulley? Or am I about to be drilling and tapping an engine block?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top