Peak Car.

[juular]

6 minutes ago, Dyslexic Viking said:

I had a 97 V70 2.4 10v manual and it was not a car I liked much. It had a much higher fuel consumption than my 740, it was a nightmare to work on some things like the PCV system which took me 6 hours to change I also felt that it was unnecessarily complicated and it lacked character or whatever you want to call it. There is a strong opinion among many here that the last genuine Volvo was the 940 and I agree.

And the later versions of the red block with electronic injection like the B230F which was in my 740 together with 5 speed manual did not have so bad fuel consumption fully loaded with ski box on the roof on a long trip I got down to 0.68 liters per 10 km or 41.54 mpg.

Agreed on the 10v and N/A petrols. I don't see much point in them, as they are a bit underpowered, wheezy and thirsty.  At least the turbocharged petrols are very rapid while still giving about the same MPG.  My C70 T5 does around 28mpg which I believe is about all you'll get out of the 10v engines. And yes, the PCV system on the petrols is a serious weak point, as well as the boost control system.

The TDI on the other hand feels really well suited to that type of car.

[chodweaver]

Interesting about those V70 engines - i felt guilty about not persevering with mine after woes with the AWD system, the ABS, its general thirst for tyres and petrol, and the insanity of running flexible fuel hose over the top of the tank with no access panel in floor, which rodents then got a taste for turning it into a fire hazard. I still regret scrapping it, but i just didn't love it enough. I really hoped it would be a forever car for me and still have an itch for a Swedish estate*

*Goes off on a tangent to the Shitemove thread. Again

[Metal Guru]

30 minutes ago, juular said:

Agreed on the 10v and N/A petrols. I don't see much point in them, as they are a bit underpowered, wheezy and thirsty.  At least the turbocharged petrols are very rapid while still giving about the same MPG.  My C70 T5 does around 28mpg which I believe is about all you'll get out of the 10v engines. And yes, the PCV system on the petrols is a serious weak point, as well as the boost control system.

The TDI on the other hand feels really well suited to that type of car.

Limited experience of Volvos, but my Dad had a 740 (E  reg) and 940 ( H reg), both 2.3 l petrol I think , and they were pretty boring to drive although being autos didn’t help.

Hired an XC70 for a week in Iceland and it was impressive  in the snow although it did have studded tyres. Way short of a park car though.

 

[dieselnutjob]

I love my Jag XJ 2.7 diesel.

It's really quick and yet can do 50mpg on a run with just a little restraint.

It's supremely comfortable and has all the toys.

It can tow a two ton trailer.

However I don't think it complies with "peak" car because if one ECU fails, or the battery is a bit weak then all the electronics go nuts, and it's not ULEZ compliant so it' rapidly becoming an ornament instead of a car.

For me peak car has electronics, because toys like cruise control, but they should remain discrete and having one fail shouldn't kill the whole car.  My 1996 Passat was like that and so was the 2000 806.

The smaller Rovers (25/45) were also like that and the last ones are ULEZ compliant so maybe peak car is a Rover 45 unless the last of the last Peugeot 406 was ULEZ compliant.

[MiniMinorMk3]

3 hours ago, juular said:

 

Peak car for me is somewhere between the 240 and 205.

So a Maserati 222?

[MiniMinorMk3]

The ultimate peak car must be the Mk2 Golf Git 16v. Enough room to store the family and dog, you can go to Ikea in it, fuel consumption is pretty good, handles well, they don't rust as fast as their contemporaries, and there's no stupid electronic stuff on it, and most don't even have CATs. Good simple, easily fixable, reliable, fun transport.

[dozeydustman]

On 04/12/2022 at 00:45, Metal Guru said:

I went to buy a GTi  in the mid 80s but found it a bit cramped ( I’m 6’2). Ironically my son got a 107 many years later and I found that very comfortable to drive.

6ft 5 and I can comfortably drive a 205. 3-dr are roomier

[Metal Guru]

7 hours ago, dozeydustman said:

6ft 5 and I can comfortably drive a 205. 3-dr are roomier

Long time ago, just remembered it didn’t feel right. Maybe we’re differently proportioned. I’ve often posted I hate Transits because the driving position is so uncomfortable and most people disagree.