(first posted 4/10/2014) The Volvo 144 was a paragon of modern Scandinavian design: all business, understated, clean, functional. And suddenly out of nowhere appears the 164, wearing the frumpy old affected face lifted from an anachronistic English Wolseley 6/99 saloon. It was like stepping out of an Ikea showroom into a thatched-roof English cottage, but fortunately, there were other compensations, like a lusty twin carb straight six and superb leather seats, just like the best English cars. The top of the line Volvo had a bit of an identity crisis, one that would be a recurring theme with the brand.
The contrast between them was greatest with the early version of the 164, like this one here, before the 5 mph bumpers spoiled its original deep grille.
The 164 also had a 4″ longer wheelbase, all of it in the front end, to accommodate the longer inline six.
1961 Wolseley 6/99
The British qualities of the 164 shouldn’t have come as too much of a surprise, given that Volvos always had a decidedly Anglo characteristic. They used SU carbs, had Laycock overdrives, and there was a decidedly conservative approach to Volvo engineering: no Germanic swing axle rear suspensions or alloy engines. Volvos were British cars, but just better built: Swedish steel and better electric systems (still not perfect, though).
The 1966 144 though was a big step forward for Volvo, and its superbly practical body would go on serving for decades. But Volvo saw where the market was heading, both in the US and Europe. Luxury mid-size sixes were the hot new thing, and Volvo joined BMW in the straight six party.
The new BMW 2500/2800 arrived about the same time as the 164, and its engine was even developed along the same lines as the Volvo six: add a couple more cylinders to the family four…and presto! In the case of the BMW, the M30 may not have shared quite as many parts as the Volvo six did with its donor four. But then Volvo was never quite as engine-proud as the Germans.
The Volvo 3 liter six was a perfect example of expediency; never has an engine been more obviously built up from one and a half fours. And the results were predictable: a torquey and fairly powerful unit that made the 164 quite a brisk car for the times.
I happen to have the May 1969 Road and Track in front of me (review posted at CC here), and it’s a particularly enlightening one to put the 164 into perspective. The other two tested cars are the new BMW 2500 six, and the MGC, also with a three liter six. The 164 and MGC engines were both rated at 145 (gross) hp; the smaller but higher-revving BMW 2.5 at 170 hp. The MGC weighed 2600 lbs, the Volvo and BMW both about 3000 lbs. Guess which of the three was the fastest of the three?
The Volvo. Not that the numbers are very impressive from today’s perspective, but with a 0-60 of 9.5 seconds, and a 1/4 mile in 17.6 @ 83 mph, the Volvo was squarely in typical American V8 territory. Not the hot ones, of course, but the typical family V8 mill of the times, and certainly better than the common Chevy 283/Powerglide combo. The MGC was a big disappointment; meanwhile the more expensive BMW offered plenty of other virtues.
Like handling, for one. Volvo was overly conservative with wheel rim width and tire sizes. The 164 had absurdly narrow 4.5″ wide 15″ rims, and sported skinny 6.85-15 Goodyear Power Cushion (non-radial) tires. The BMW had 70-series Michelin XAS radials. Odd. Was Volvo trying too hard to be the Swedish Buick?
Another historical note: cars just got much worse mileage back then. R&T’s recorded mileage for the 164 in “normal driving” was 17.5 mpg. That’s starting to get into American V8 territory too.
I don’t have sales stats for these old 164s, but my gut tells me they sold reasonably well, though well behind the 144. Seems to me that the folks who were attracted to the 144 might not have seen themselves so readily in a 164; their respective images just didn’t mesh very well. A Wolseley is not what a lot of Volvo drivers had in mind.
This ’75 is the last year of the 164. The 264 that replaced the 164 was a different animal altogether for a number of reasons, not least of which were its less distinctive looks. The 164 also had a longer wheelbase (all in the front end), and its jaunty nose was unmistakable.
The 264 shared the whole 244 body, and used the oft-maligned PRV 2.7 L V6, a joint undertaking with Renault and Peugeot.
The 164 six may have had its maladies as a result of being an early adopter of Bosh’s electronic D-Jetronic fuel injection after 1972, but the basic engine was as robust as the B20 it was derived from. Nevertheless, one sees very few of either of the six-cylinder Volvos anymore. It’s clear that for the long haul, they’re ones to avoid. This is the first and only 164 I’ve seen around. And 264s are just about as rare.
A bit of history I didn’t know or had forgotten was that the prototype of the 262 “chop top” coupe had been based on a 164. With their French engines and assembly by Bertone, they were truly pan-European.
Related reading:
My Aunt Hilda still has hers, a 1972, that just sits forlornly in the driveway while she splits her driving between a mid 80s 740 and her early 80s 300 SD. It served as a cousins first car until it was rear ended (though there’s not much external damage). I remember it being more sprightly (albeit a bit busy in freeway cruising) than the 20+ year Cutlass I received as a hand me down.
I considered buying one I saw on Craigslist about 3 years ago. I see them about 4-5 times a year up for sale here in California, often for prices waaaay under the $3K mark. I don’t think there’s as much of an audience for tuning and upkeeping these as there is for the 144/240 Volvo’s. If I weren’t in such a rush to replace one car with another (Lorraine the 280E is the same character of car) I probably would have waited to see if another one of these oddballs showed up.
“A bit of history I didn’t know or had forgotten was that the prototype of the 262 “chop top” coupe was based on a 164. I have found one of the coupes, and we’ll leave that for another day.”
FYI the 262 was singled out in “Crap Cars” (by Richard Porter) for being even more of an “old man’s car” due to the vinyl roof. He thought that Volvo was trying to make the car more “American” with that particular affectation.
I didn’t really start appreciating Volvos until I picked up my first one. It was a 1990 740 GLE. Looked perfect yet had 235,000 miles in it. I fell in love with the B234F, just wish it had a manual trans.. That car is what makes the sadist in me want an older Volvo “Project” car..
You wish to torture and abuse an elderly Volvo? Dood! That’s sick!
If you’re going to go with a Volvo project car, find a P1800. Reward your efforts with something sexy that’s just as reliable.
…yeah …or a thrashed T5 ex-UK motorway cop chase car (those five cylinder engines honk along when pushed) ..and the newer ones can be easily re-programmed for boost for even more excitement..
I came across quite a few 164s while in my shady-used-salesman days during university, more than twenty years ago. They were very tough cars and could be sold and resold at astronomical mileage. Also, these cars were easy to fix and were not rust buckets. Everything was of very high quality. They drove very ,very well, too and had gobs of torque.
Alas, they also had a well deserved reputation for gulping gasoline like a 5 ton truck,
That was one of my many beefs with my ’74 164E, city mileage barely got into double digits.
I don’t want to out my Volvo experts, as they have customers nationwide. Still, I’ve heard from people who really know and love Volvos that the 164 engines were not on a par with the 4 cylinders in durability. Something about soft camshafts, IIRC. I know that you could pick up 164s for VERY little money in the mid ’80s.
The 262C was the result of Volvo executives being ferried in Lincoln Continental MKIIIs when they met with Ford management. Apparently, they were blown away by the Lincoln and determined to build something similar for their own use. That’s what I read in Car and Driver or Road & Track when the 262C Bertone came out anyway.
Was the BMW 2500 in the test an automatic? Not that I’d expect it to get to 60 mph in less than 9.5 seconds, but I’d have thought it would be at least as quick as a 164.
Actually, CJ, you are referring to the PRV V-6. Problem with that motor was North American owners were not changing oil frequently enough.
The straight 6 B-30 was as reliable as an anvil. Many were put into boats for that reason.
Nope. I know what the B30 was, and people who were in a position to know told me they were nowhere near as durable or dependable as the B18 and B20 were. PRV V6s were crummy too, but the 164s were the almost free used cars 25 years ago. 262Cs and 264s were practically current.
Still many B-30s running around in boats around here, 170hp, original cams, NO reliability problems to speak of…. I know; As a professional marine tech I see them quite often.
Any chance those boat-mounted B30s are specifically marine engines? If so it’s distinctly possible that they were built to different standards and a different state of tune. Aren’t boat motors much more likely to spend hours at steady state, rather than needing flexibility like car motors?
Just found this page while looking for pics of a 164. For what it’s worth, a friend who is an experienced Volvo restorer here in the UK has made similar comments about the B30. I don’t think there’s anything specifically wrong with the cam…the problems appear to relate to the oil and water pumps being retained from the B18/20. They can struggle a little to stay cool, and oil delivery can become a touch lacklustre with age.
Having said that, I own a 164, and it doesn’t give any trouble. I think it’s more a case of not being as bulletproof as the B20, rather than being weak as such.
I beg to differ on this one. We had a 164E when I was a small kid and went through 2 engines within a couple of months. Apparently (I was a bit too young to be explained all the details), the distributor pinion drive was what killed both engines. Each time, it was a high-speed stint on a European motorway that triggered the (fatal) issue.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the marine B30s had a different distributor setup or simply were not revved as hard as car engines.
The BMW was a stick too. R&T suspects that the 145 hp rating of the 164 was low, given that the 2 liter B20 made 118 hp. Given the similar state of tune, that would extrapolate to 177 hp for the 164. Was Volvo sandbagging the hp rating for some reason? Or?
The figure of 118 hp that you are quoting is for the fuel injected low compression us-model. The single carb B20 had an output of about 82 hp, the double carb between 95-100, and the fuel injected between 115-124 in different guises. The double carb B30 had an output of 130 hp, and the fuel injected between 125-160 hp. So, it’s not impossible that the tested car were a stronger version. I have absolutely no idea why there’s such a big span on the B30, and what constitutes the different versions. Perhaps some brickhead could shed some light?
I think the difference is DIN/SAE, and double carb/fuel injection. 130/160 hip DIN equals 145/175 hp SAE. So, the power difference in the R&T tested 164 is mostly due to the ratings being quoted was a double carb, while the actually tested car was a fuel injected car.
The hp numbers discussed in the 1969 Road & Track Paul refered to would have been for high compression, leaded fuel, minimal emissions control engines. Compression ratios started to drop in 1971, net hp numbers started being reported in 1972, and 1974 is generally considered the year when standards had actually decimated performance rather than just reported numbers.
I prefer the Wolseley I owned an Austin version many years ago. As stated in the owners handbook-for touring at sustained speeds in excess of 85-90mph in flation for both front and rear tyres should be increased by 6lb.these would cruise all day at the ‘ton’, try that in a 59 US sedan. As for the Volve 164 hang some sidedraught SUs ion it they go ok but they handle like a block of flats, the 264/2 had an engine from hell good candidate for a V8 swap but it still looked like a grandad car, Richard Porter was right, it was crap and J DeLorean bought the engine for his disaster he really was an idiot.
A friend in high school had a 264GL–nice-looking, comfortable car, but I have to wonder if the PRV V6 held up over time. There had to be a reason the 260s were vastly outnumbered by the 240s (can’t recall the last time I saw a 260).
How did the big Wolseley compare with the Riley 6/80 does anyone know?
The 6/80 predated my carhood interest days by a few years but they always impressed me with their long imposing bonnets and they looked damned fast and powerful to a little kid used to being trundled around on the front seat of a slow jerky old grey split screen Morrie
Ponderous would describe 6/80 they arent very fast and have slow steering fortunately for the police people generally pull over when asked there no possible way a 6/80 could out pace a E series Vauxhall or even the sluggish MK1 Zephyr, A friend has a mint 6/80, nice cars but not a performance car by any means.
This brings back memories, some good some bad. I drove a 74 164E in college that was a family hand me down. The light blue leather seats were cracked just like this one, although the 74 had the more English handbrake arrangement with the lever between the seat and door, instead of between the seats. It was comfortable and reasonably quick but gas mileage was poor and minor stuff like paint and upholstery were not as tough, plus the fuel injectors and timing gears wore out. Finally salt and Volvo did not get along. In Oregon a 74 Volvo would survive much better but I would still go for a 145 with stick and OD over another 164.
Really a pity that 162C didn’t make it into production unmodified. The combination of that nose with the cut down roof works a bit better than the plain flat nose of the 262C. Although I have to admit I’ve always had a perverse liking for the 262C, vinyl roof and all.
I wonder if it’s true what the guy in “Crap Cars” said about these not having enough headroom…it’s a waay long time since I’ve even seen one of them.
Funny I just saw one today in Albany and it made me remember the short time I owned one.
I bought it with grandiose plans for “restoration”. But I never could get it to run right. The lady I bought it from said she thought it had a bad head gasket, as it would run good but just as it started to warm up it would get worse and worse until it would die. I saw no evidence of a bad head gasket, I looked and looked but could not find a cause until I just happened to look under the car and I saw that someone had crushed the tailpipe on a curb. I cut it off and viola, a new car! then the transmission started to slip so I had to buy a special tool to adjust the second gear band. Then the heater core started to leak. I removed most of the dash to get to the heater box. When I did finally get to it I found that just touching it would cause the old white plastic it was made of to turn into fine powder. Good luck finding a better heater housing for that! In the end, I think I scraped it.
Yes! By the way I have two heater cores with all the plastic from 140 wagons. Ive done that job twice and its interminable and every old plastic thing breaks.
Damn good cars. A gray overcast day in a rural area kind of car. I’m wondering, today, is it the uber-primitive onboard compy, or the injectors that make this engine a difficult project?
Argh, it’s always the old Volvos that drag me out of lurkerdom…
That 144 nose really brings back some memories. Out of all the Volvos I’ve owned or had a significant relationship with (several Amazons, 240, a couple 700 and 900 series, 850), the best was probably a 1972 144 that was about 16 years old when my dad picked it up on a whim for a couple hundred bucks ’cause he liked the 122S we’d been fixing up for me so much.
Paul, when are you going to cover the official car of Oregon, the Volvo 200 series?
I lost count of all the bricks I saw in Portland visiting my sister, and then when I went down to Eugene to see my dad, it was like I had died and gone to Stockholm.
If there was ever a true curbside classic in Oregon, it’s the old RWD 240.
Being raised in Austria myself, I must say: Das Auto der Oregon kann nicht ignoriert werden!
I have shot so may of them, so now I can’t decide which one to use for a CC.
Seriously, it has to happen soon; I can only put it off so long.
Under restoration are 2 Volvo 164’s
I is the rare 1975 164 TE which has the rear map lights and snow wipers on the head lights.
The other is a 1974 auto model Both will be put on classic car registration soon.
Would love to see some pics of the 164 TE.. In the process of restoring, (started as a paint job, and has spiraled out of control) a ’75 164E
Here a video from a guy who has a TE (in process of restoring, too). It may serve you well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAKZUL1qlwo
Keep in mind: Other than the 264TE, the 164TE was NO extensed version.
Dear all,
I am looking for spare parts for my Volvo 164 E 1974. I can buy either spare parts or another car to get the parts from. I would appreciate it if anybody can help. My email is:felawar@yahoo.com
Thanks.
Faraj El-Awar
I wanted a large ’70s cruiser that was a bit different so I bought a ’72 Volvo 164. The longer I’ve owned it the more I like it. For an early ’70s car the build quality is very good, compared to other European cars, it is powerful and fast, the engine and running gear are simple, solid and reliable. Volvos had a very high standard of paintwork at the time and I believe 164s had a galvanised floor, virtually unknown in those days. Working on the car is easy, thanks to good access in the engine bay and quality components.
Downside is fuel consumption is high, 18mpg around town, about 25 on the motorway, however that’s pretty much standard for a straight 6 at the time, a Zephyr or Ventora would be the same. Handling is poor, again they all were back in those days. This I’ve improved with a set of rear Bilsteins, you could go further with a set of wider alloys from a 244/264, but I like the car to look original.
I have a 75′ Volvo 164E which I have saved from being scrapped, the radiator is badly damaged from the fan hitting it by the previous owners handywork, a recore is my only expensive option so far, does the 164 share the same radiator as any other models?
Hi,
Pretty sure the rad is bigger than the 140 series had. A recore shouldn’t be too expensive. I had one done recently on a Fiat for about £140. It would be nice to have a Volvo 200 or 700 rad but they may be too low and wide unlike the very tall old style 164 rad.
A fair bit of 164 stuff turns up on ebay.com so you may get lucky there.
You have got to be kidding. I just mentioned my Grandfather’s 164 in another article and now this. CC effect is freaking me out.
When he retired from his job running a large dept store region, he was offered his 1966 Galaxie as part of his retirement package. Too much of a guzzler so he looked around. Short list came down to a P6 2000 Rover and a small bumper 164 in 1969. Bought the Volvo because he thought the Rover didn’t have enough interior space. Then he and Dad walked into the Volvo showroom in 1975, Dad bought a runout 74 big bumper 145 and Grampa got his big bumper 164. IIRC it had smaller taillights and I can’t remember if it had an ‘E’ designation, I think Aussie Volvos had DL or GL badges only by then. Didn’t know about the ‘162’ Bertone.
I always associate this car with Don M. He was one of those gentle, great men about whom no one had a bad word, and he moved on too soon. Big thanks, Paul.
In 1974 my uncle bought a brand new 164E. It was a dark honey brown metallic with black interior, and replaced his always troublesome manual trans green Mk 1 Triumph 2000. The Volvo was a superb quiet smooth powerful thing with strong broad thick soft black leather seating and freezing icy cold super powerful air conditioning.. he never drove it quickly (he had been a Lockheed Ventura bomber squadron leader in the Pacific in WW11) but rather he drove as if he was still flying in a very smooth measured way which fascinated me because my father drove his Zephyrs Falcons Valiant 318 and CJ 360 Limo like a frenzied maniac always rushing late to the airport (and he used to tell an amusing story of drifting his own father’s flathead Ford V8 sideways down from Mountain Road and right across Khyber Pass despite the traffic!!)).. so ..after my uncle Des’s example I always associated these big Volvo’s with safe quiet smooth driving ..funny that ..perhaps they just were never that hoonable anyway (??)
Sitting at the traffic lights one quiet night and a 264 eases up next to me. Being young and callow, I decided to show him what my Alfa could do. He was at the next traffic light waiting for me. Had a chat, he offered me a ride. He’d stuffed a 308 under the bonnet. Played with it for a bit on those empty streets; handbrakeys etc. Blew my mind. And this was his wife’s car.
My grandparents bought one new here in NZ too – albeit a year earlier than your Uncle, in ’73. Replaced their ’59 Plymouth Belvedere. Gorgeous blue-green with orange leather interior, sunroof and a/c – oddly it also had front quarter-windows which the a/c cars weren’t supposed to have. It was the manual-overdrive model and quick for the day – especially the time in the South Island in the mid-70s when the throttle jammed open…
I rather like the in-your-face traditionalism of the Wolseley. The Volvo doesn’t pull it off as well. The Fitz and Van like art doesn’t hurt either……..
I like that ad too, Fitz & Van was my first thought to, it makes me want to be a English businessman in the 60’s, rushing off in my Wosley on a dark rainy London night, dodging Minis and black cabs, on the way to a rendezvous with my mistress…
I’ve never owned or driven a Volvo 164, but I’ve always liked its front end styling. The only thing I didn’t like were the govt. required energy absorbing bumpers. It’s fine for the rear of the car, but it makes the front of the car look ugly.
I am not sure how I got to this stage, but I have gone my entire life never noticing the difference between the 164 and the 144. Every time I saw one, I assumed that it had the same front end as all pre-1973 Volvos and then promptly forgot. Now I get it – tall skinny grille = six cylinders.
In my part of the country, these (or any Volvos) were just not frequently seen until the late 70s. Even now, chrome-bumper MGs and Triumphs are much more often seen than chrome-bumper Volvos.
FWIW, the 164 has a longer front end too, with additional wheelbase up there, just like American cars (Studebaker, etc) used to do in the old days. The later 264 with the V6 didn’t have that.
I didn’t mind these cars, but I remember these 70’s Volvo’s having terrible reputations for reliability. In fact, I remember one of my old used car guides from the 1970’s having a entire section about Volvo and all it’s problems.
The similarity with the BMC Farina 6 cylinder cars is definitely there.They also look too much like the 4 cylinder models.I’m pretty sure I saw these Volvos as a kid in the 60s and early 70s but never paid close attention,
The BMW 2500/2800/Bavarias don’t seem that sought after, I guess because they have lived in the shadow of the E9 coupe for so long.
But compared to the Volvo 164 that black sedan looks really sexy. I hear they are less rust prone than the E9 coupes. Love the wheels.
I’d buy a BMW Bavaria if it were in beautiful original condition. Condition is everything! I don’t want to spend thousands of dollars to get the car running reliably. I’d rather just get in, turn the key, put it in first gear, and go!
You’ll be wanting one with the 3.5 liter and 5-speed from an E28 535i. Very popular swap in the Bavaria community.
Check out the Senior Six registry:
http://www.seniorsix.org/e3info/articles.html
I’ve seen that website before. I used to know someone who had a BMW Bavaria. What engine it had under the hood, I don’t remember.
I must say this was the first time I’ve heard of a “BMW Bavaria”. No wonder, if the information I found is correct it was a US-only model. Funny name, Bayerische Motoren Werke Bayern.
I remember a note in a 70s car magazine. According to this, there was a survey in the USA at the time about what the three letters “BMW” stand for. The majority of respondents translated it as “British Motor Works”.
As a result, BMW is said to have felt compelled to introduce the model name “Bavaria” in the USA.
Thanks for dredging up bad memories… that, that THING is an exact duplicate of my long gone and very unlamented ’74 164E. Most troublesome car I ever owned. I swear if I ever see one in person I’ll lose it…
Cars that looked anachronistic or derivative in their time sometimes look better removed from their original context. The early 164’s odd retro-British vibe is really rather charming, although inevitably the big bumpers don’t do it any favors.
I agree. I don’t know why the US Govt. thought it necessary to force auto makers to put them on to the cars. Some of them look added on as an afterthought.
Oh, I know exactly why the feds instituted the 5 mph bumper rule — public pressure about out-of-control repair costs for even minor fender-benders because a lot of bumpers were more about adding a bit more decorative brightwork than actually protecting the sheet metal.
Most of the early 5 mph bumpers WERE afterthoughts because the rules required them to be added to existing cars that hadn’t been designed for them. Later examples developed after designers had more lead time to figure out ways to incorporate the larger bumpers weren’t necessarily so bad (e.g., Porsche 924 and 928).
Really interesting,for the first time I am hearing about the BMW Bavaria.Whatever features the car having the most important thing is to give the best service.
I have a 1970 164 with a M400 4 speed and mint condition red leather interior . It’s my favorite Volvo but I also own 5 240’s , and 2 amazons . Out of the 240’s they list a 245 GL, 244DL, 244 Diesel (GL trim) , a 245 DL Overseas Delivery from Germany, and a 1979 242GT .
The Diesel also has a very interesting history being called a 240 but having a 2.4L VW diesel (D24) so it should have been called a 264 but unlike the 264 is didn’t get the longer front end . Amazingly the D24 is practically the same size as the B230 .
The Diesel is my favorite Volvo to drive to be honest but the 164 is still my favorite over all.
I enjoyed the article !
Josh
And I just saw your ’84 244 Diesel at my meet in Alexandria last week. That thing is a beast man!
p.s. How about that burgundy ’70 164 we had up there?
PJ , I didn’t get to thank you before you left from the parking garage . What a small world to find me on this site I made a comment on. I believe the name of the owner of the 164 that was there was Eric? I would like to keep in touch with some of the folks I met but everyone left so soon.
Josh
Thanks for the memories. My folks picked up a White ’73 164E in Sweden and shipped it back to So. Cal. Dad loved the car- it was comfy, solid, and dead-to-nuts reliable. I was surprised dad chose the Volvo, since he had 5 Mercedes’s dating back to the Pontoon era before this car. The Volvo had an effective A/C unit, didn’t overheat in summer rush hour LA traffic with the A/C on (unlike the prior two Mercedes’s), and had remarkably few issues over the 6 yrs and well over 100K miles of ownership. I remember an EGR valve went bad, and a set of injectors were replaced in Portland (under extended warranty). That was about it for servicing other than routine items. The car was sold to a neighbor in about 1980 when my parents decided they didn’t need two cars, and he still had the car in ’97 when we moved mom up to the Pacific Nwst.
I love 164s. I always have, from the first time I saw one—which I reckon was probably the one driven by Mrs. Daley, my fourth grade math teacher. I like boxes on wheels, and the 164 is such a one. And even despite the “crap, we forgot, now what’re we gonna do?!” turn signals, I really like the front end, especially in its ’69-’72 configurations (though obviously the ’74-’75 battering-ram bumpers are much more functional for parrying prangs and mounting lights).
Of course, I’m biased.
A near neighbour round the corner from me had one of these (G reg, so ’68-’69, still with vertical rear lights and traditional door handles) for about 2 years until a few months ago. White and in pretty good condition it was in daily use, even carried (short) ladders in it. He apparently sold it for more than he bought it for too.
In 1982, again back in college, I needed a reliable & economical car for the daily 110 mile commute to the college of my choice.
My specifications were: Air conditioning, comfortable seats and ride quality, trustworthy and 20 miles per gallon at a steady state, strain free and composed 75 miles per hour (quite fast for the double nickle mentality of the police).
A silver 1975 Volvo 164E, showing 85K on the odometer, appeared to be an excellent car for my needs.
With the 4 speed manual/electric overdrive combo, it was a fun to drive car. The shifter snicked as precisely and as good as any other car that I had driven, foreign or domestic. The torquey six cylinder engine would pull second gear, without bucking or complaining, from 5 miles per hour , in traffic situations. Volvo’s 3 speed slush box automatic transmission of this time period gave a much slower and less entertaining car.
The small, center of dashboard tachometer was as entertaining as it was informative.
The comfortable, attractive, aromatic leather seats dried out quickly; with the top layer of leather flaking off and blowing around inside of the car. Every Friday, upon returning home, I would soak the leather seats with preservative, let it sit all weekend, and wipe ’em down on Monday morning. The seats still flaked off and deteriorated.
I would wow non-car people by palming the OD switch on the top of the 3 speed shifter, showing how peppy the car could be in a two lane passing situation, without having to downshift to third gear.
With a set of Michelin XZX radial tires the Volvo handled better than you would like a tall, square boxy car would! I never even slowed down in the rain.
Although the A/C was not as good as in a Buick or Lincoln; it was better than most foreign cars of this time period. A little noisy, a little crude, but it kept me comfortable (even with the black leather seats!) in the intense heat & humidity the permeates New Orleans much of the year.
The low mounted radio and power (front only) window switches, located high up on the dashboard, did take some getting used to.
When I got tired of it, I sold it to a fellow auto enthusiast who had left his name and phone number under the windshield wiper. He commented that he had been looking for quite some time for a 4 speed/OD 164 Volvo.
In the late 80s I had a 1975 164E in a Rusty orange color. I thought it was beautiful (at least back then I did) but then it started breaking down and cost me $300 every 3 weeks in repairs. Cheap today but not back then when I was working at Kinko’s copies for $8 an hour and paying bills and rent. One day it’s front end fell out and I ditched it in Downtown L.A. and watched the towing firm haul it away for good. I guess it wasn’t down for the count though because a few years later I got an impound notice on the car. I had taken it out of my name and had proof but somewhere there was a glitch I guess. I’m glad it got to drive a few miles longer.
Oh gawd… there goes my PTSD. I had this car’s exact twin, the most reliable car I’ve ever owned… I could rely on that steaming pile leaving me stranded at LEAST twice a month, usually more. That stinking piece of **** had the electrical system from hell, it would eat alternators almost as fast as a Vega eats oil. No one could figure out why it did that little stunt, under normal circumstances there wasn’t any inordinate draw on the electrical system while driving the turd. Finally one day I just gave up on the ****pile and sold it for a pittance just to be rid of it, lost my a** on it. Have hated Volvos with a bloody passion ever since.
Perhaps everything isn’t so contradictory with the 164’s Anglo-Swedish character.
There was a saying in Sweden: “When it rains in London, in Gothenburg people open their umbrellas.” This was aimed at the traditionally close economic ties between the two cities ( – no longer soooo common today).
Maybe the 164 mirrored this a little bit…
“… before the 5 mph bumpers spoiled its original deep grille.”
Objection, Sir ! I don’t see any correlation here. The grill was shortened for the MY ’73 cars, whereas the 5 mph bumpers came from MY ’74 on.
I think, they rather intended to give the car a little more up-to-date face without investing to much money. Or even to already lead people stylewise to the coming 264’s “organ pipe grill”.
By the way: I for myself prefer the MY ’73 as the best looking 164’s model year. Deliver the mine in greenblue metallic with cognac coloured leather upholstery, please.
The grille was shortened in 1973 to comply with the new 2.5 mph bumper regs that year, as well as the anticipated 1974 5 mile bumper regs. It wasn’t just a restyle for its own sake. And all those subsequent Volvo grilles (like the 264’s) were all shorter because of the bumpers. Who knows how they might have looked if it hadn’t been for those regulations?
Good machine. Personally, i prefer the 100% scandinavian version.
My mom’s friend had one. She was a retired teacher, who just bought used, trashed Volvos, one after the other. This one was a well-patina-ed ’71, (probably) in BRG with ragged tan leather and an automatic. I was 17, and when she went to Europe for a month, I was allegedly taking care of her garden. But, when also tasked with moving her car once a week, somehow I decided it was better to drive it, not around the block, but from Sausalito to San Francisco, every day, after school, for hours, to The Haight, North Beach, up hills, across the Golden Gate.. it was freedom and it was Swedish sexy (in my mind).. and most of all, it ran. Thank the stars it didn’t break down, so for one 164, it was trustworthy. For a month. And boy, did I love it.
It is fun to see this article back. I have had the pleasure of a lot of wheel time in a Volvo 164. They drove very well for the era and the motor was very torquey. By today’s standards a 164 wouldn’t be considered fast but half a century ago they were. The ones I drove had plenty of grunt and the fuel injected ones were the best of the bunch, provided you kept it serviced properly. Many early FI systems were beyond the skill level of gas station mechanics.