We collected our 740 GLE in March 1990 - I remember the day well. Interior was identical to this one and I still remember the smell. Same wheels too. What a lovely car it was. Replaced in 1998 with a 940 Celebration.. which we still have. Also had a 9000. Still have multiple Saabs and Volvos in the family. No BMWs.
@@fernandorocha-dx1wv Don't rule out the later 740s and 940s/960s up until 1998 - all great cars. Just avoid the 2.8 PRV6 and early 3.0 straight 6.. and the 16v 4. Other than that, they're all good.
I miss those days, cars had so much more character and there was so much more variety than today where most sedans look the same and are mostly 4 cylinders now.
@@janfgfdx5165 I'm not a Kia or Hyundai fan. During COVID we were shopping minivans and they had a markup of $5K and their van was so cheaply built I laughed and walked out. I also don't think their quality is great, similar to Nissan.
These were nice cars. I've been in a few of the 740 series over the years. This is the big, comfy sedan that detroit should have built with this level of build quality combined with relatively simple (but robust) engineering. I remember reading an article from the late 70's that Ford intended the Fox Body Fairmont to be the American version of a Volvo 240 and it was the same basic recipe. But it was garbage compared to Volvo because the robust engineering and build quality of Volvo was missing. Take a late 70's Fairmont with the 2.3L 4 cylinder engine and manual transmission (which was available) and then drive it in comparison to the equivalent Volvo 240 with manual transmission and 2.3L engine. There is really no comparison. The Volvo was a rolling bank vault. The Ford was a rolling collection of poorly fitting parts. The interior (especially the dash) of the Fairmont was complete garbage compared to the solid, boxy robust dash of the 240. You might say, "well the 240 was a luxury car." I would disagree. In its basic form it really was not a luxury car. It did have quality the Ford lacked and it was a lot more reliable. The 740 (obviously) especially wtih the leather in THIS example is more up market than a run of the mill 240 and I will give you that. However, considering that it had a simple (for today) 16 valve engine with a manual transmission and even managed to get away with using a solid rear axle with reasonable results means that it really is still a basic car. The fact that it also has basic climate controls are an advantage as far as I'm concerned. I must say that I am not sure about the reliability on this 16 valve engine compared to the old reliable 2.3 8 valve. Given the choice I'd have the 2.3 8 valve which WAS a very reliable engine. I seem to recall problems with the valvetrain/top end of the engine in these 16 valve engines. That is too bad. Just give me the old 240 with the 2.3L 8 valve engine and this same 4 speed manual with the 5th overdrive gear (which I think is acceptable especially in this kind of car).
Those ‘cheap-feeling’ plastics will still be there! The 3-series might compete on price but you’d have to move up to a 5-series to match the Volvo’s size…
I got my 2015 Honda civic totaled by one of these old school Volvos. The driver ran a ran a stop sign doing 50mph and the only damage the Volvo had was a cracked grill.
@@jkeelsnc Correct. I know because I worked at a Volvo dealer from1997 to 2007, I would choose the 8-valve or the Turbo any day over the 16-valve. They had good power and were a nice engine, but when you heard ticking... it was a ticking time bomb.
When Joyce Braga first previewed the 700-series in 1981, her intro was "The new, svelte look belongs to Volvo, that perennial builder of solid & reliable Swedish transportation". Svelte?!!!! Please, the 740/760 was more of a brick than The Brick!!!! That's not to say it was a HIDEOUSLY UGLY car, just not one that could ever be accused of being drop-dead sexy.
