I had a '73 145(E - the F.I. version). By that time, the older, horizontal "thermometer" Volvo speedometer had been replaced by a normal one.
My wagon sat for a few years before I bought it (dirt cheap), but I was never able to chase down all of the various leaks due to old seals, cracked vacuum lines, etc. An old Volvo, down on power, is not a ton of fun to drive.
The classic wagon shape is so awesome, but this car design just seems kludged together. In this case it looks like the back doors are the same as would be used on the sedan. That awkward C-pillar doesn't mesh well with the rear half of the car and the rear cabin windows look almost an inch taller than the door seals. Why do that?
Volvo was doing modular chassis. They'd design a 2-door sedan first, then make 4 & 5-door variants. The doors on this indeed are the same as the 4-door version.
The 164 for instance was a 144 with a longer nose to accommodate the straight-six OHV motor, which itself was a stretched out 4-cylinder. The 240 series is the same chassis too, with a modified front end for MacPherson suspension.
So, you can make 2-door wagons and straight-six coupes if you feel like stitching a couple cars together. Pretty much kept that chassis in production from '67-93.
The hardware used and build quality of them before '73 is pretty impressive. Hell, even the paint. This is one of the last of the good ones.
"In this case it looks like the back doors are the same as would be used on the sedan."
They are, as another anonymous said, but the reason to do that is more or less manufacturing based: In US 100 000 car per year (for a specific model) is very small amount, for Volvo it is a lot.
Small production volumes makes it more or less mandatory to use common parts as much as possible, otherwise the price gap between sedan and wagon becomes too large.
Volvo fixed this problem in 700-series, they designed the wagon first and there were several years you could only buy a wagon.
The two "Anonymous" people have some facts wrong! First Anonymous said: "They'd design a 2-door sedan first, then make 4 & 5-door variants." And thats wrong!
Volvo 144 was the first in line and was released late 1966 as modell-year 1967.
Then came Volvo 142S mid 1967 as modell-year 1967 (only 1500 produced that year,i own ch.nr 662).
Then it was time for the Volvo 145 early 1968 as modell-year 1968.
And in late 1968 it was time for the Volvo 164 as modell-year 1969.
But as stated all of the above used the same doors and they pretty much fits 1967-93 so u can take a door from a 1993 Volvo 240 and fit on a 1967 140 with small modifications and vice versa!
Second Anonymous said: "they designed the wagon first" And thats wrong too!
The Volvo 764 (sedan) was introduced as modell-year 1982. The Volvo 744(sedan),745(estate) and 765(estate) was introduced as modell-year 1985.
Maybe they only sold estates in the U.S the first years but i doubt it.
68 was the first year for the 140 in the US, probably later '67 introduction. We had a '70 145S wagon with the automatic. It held up to my learning to drive in it in the late 70s. Not a lot of them around, even in the SF Bay Area- terrible electrical (ours was Lucas) major problems with the engine (camshaft at 40k). Traded in for a '78 Rabbit, which was a much more troublesome car
I had one like that during the early 80s. It was my first proper car (OK, I had a van previously). It was the first vehicle that I drove at 100+ MPH and was the transport for my mobile disco. The load space was fantastic and was certainly taller than most estate cars at that time. My car differed a little from the one in the photograph as it was the UK spec vehicle but was the same colour. The main difference was the lack of secondary lights mounted on the side of the car. My main memories of the car were that the engine was very "tappety" sounding but had plenty of power. The hand-brake was pretty useless and unusually was located next to the drivers door. It was quite an easy car to work on and was very reliable. Sadly, it was written off by a Cortina emerging from a blind junction. The tank like construction of the Volvo survived the impact but the cosmetic damage to the side of the vehicle meant that it was an uneconomic repair.
Best of OPC. 
10 comments:
I had a '73 145(E - the F.I. version). By that time, the older, horizontal "thermometer" Volvo speedometer had been replaced by a normal one.
My wagon sat for a few years before I bought it (dirt cheap), but I was never able to chase down all of the various leaks due to old seals, cracked vacuum lines, etc. An old Volvo, down on power, is not a ton of fun to drive.
The classic wagon shape is so awesome, but this car design just seems kludged together. In this case it looks like the back doors are the same as would be used on the sedan. That awkward C-pillar doesn't mesh well with the rear half of the car and the rear cabin windows look almost an inch taller than the door seals. Why do that?
Christ, it looks brand new. Haha @ the Taurus wagon in the BG with a tarp on the rear.
Volvo was doing modular chassis. They'd design a 2-door sedan first, then make 4 & 5-door variants. The doors on this indeed are the same as the 4-door version.
The 164 for instance was a 144 with a longer nose to accommodate the straight-six OHV motor, which itself was a stretched out 4-cylinder. The 240 series is the same chassis too, with a modified front end for MacPherson suspension.
So, you can make 2-door wagons and straight-six coupes if you feel like stitching a couple cars together. Pretty much kept that chassis in production from '67-93.
The hardware used and build quality of them before '73 is pretty impressive. Hell, even the paint. This is one of the last of the good ones.
"In this case it looks like the back doors are the same as would be used on the sedan."
They are, as another anonymous said, but the reason to do that is more or less manufacturing based: In US 100 000 car per year (for a specific model) is very small amount, for Volvo it is a lot.
Small production volumes makes it more or less mandatory to use common parts as much as possible, otherwise the price gap between sedan and wagon becomes too large.
Volvo fixed this problem in 700-series, they designed the wagon first and there were several years you could only buy a wagon.
The two "Anonymous" people have some facts wrong!
First Anonymous said: "They'd design a 2-door sedan first, then make 4 & 5-door variants."
And thats wrong!
Volvo 144 was the first in line and was released late 1966 as modell-year 1967.
Then came Volvo 142S mid 1967 as modell-year 1967 (only 1500 produced that year,i own ch.nr 662).
Then it was time for the Volvo 145 early 1968 as modell-year 1968.
And in late 1968 it was time for the Volvo 164 as modell-year 1969.
But as stated all of the above used the same doors and they pretty much fits 1967-93 so u can take a door from a 1993 Volvo 240 and fit on a 1967 140 with small modifications and vice versa!
Second Anonymous said: "they designed the wagon first"
And thats wrong too!
The Volvo 764 (sedan) was introduced as modell-year 1982.
The Volvo 744(sedan),745(estate) and 765(estate) was introduced as modell-year 1985.
Maybe they only sold estates in the U.S the first years but i doubt it.
Regards Sillen (from Sweden)
five-star comment right there. thank for your contribution, sillen :)
I don't think we got the 700 wagons until about 1985
68 was the first year for the 140 in the US, probably later '67 introduction. We had a '70 145S wagon with the automatic. It held up to my learning to drive in it in the late 70s. Not a lot of them around, even in the SF Bay Area- terrible electrical (ours was Lucas) major problems with the engine (camshaft at 40k). Traded in for a '78 Rabbit, which was a much more troublesome car
I had one like that during the early 80s. It was my first proper car (OK, I had a van previously). It was the first vehicle that I drove at 100+ MPH and was the transport for my mobile disco. The load space was fantastic and was certainly taller than most estate cars at that time. My car differed a little from the one in the photograph as it was the UK spec vehicle but was the same colour. The main difference was the lack of secondary lights mounted on the side of the car. My main memories of the car were that the engine was very "tappety" sounding but had plenty of power. The hand-brake was pretty useless and unusually was located next to the drivers door. It was quite an easy car to work on and was very reliable. Sadly, it was written off by a Cortina emerging from a blind junction. The tank like construction of the Volvo survived the impact but the cosmetic damage to the side of the vehicle meant that it was an uneconomic repair.
Post a Comment