I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve never had much use for four-door sedans; all of my collector cars have been two-doors, whether convertibles, coupes, or sedans. And sure, a couple of my Volvo test cars over the years were four-doors, a 2002 S80 and an S60 a while later, but whenever I had a choice, I opted for a station wagon, especially after Volvo dropped the two-door 240-series.
I’ve always felt that the station wagon body style offers the most versatility for accommodating whatever combination of passengers and cargo one might need to throw at it. And, donning my car-designer hat for a second, it’s also my personal opinion that wagons frequently just look better than sedans as well.
When Volvo’s new 700-series station wagon was introduced in mid-1985, I was driving a medium blue metallic 240 wagon with a blue velour (“plysch” in Volvo-speak) interior, a combination not offered in the U.S., but one we were (ahem) evaluating for future use. The stick-shift 245 was a pleasant ride, but I was hoping to score a new 740 wagon as my next company-car commuter. As it happened, my first requested color combination (graphite metallic with a black leather interior) was approved by our Corporate Fleet colleagues, and shortly thereafter I found myself in the driver’s seat of a new 745 GLE.
Powered by Volvo’s 114-HP B230F four-cylinder mated to a four-speed ZF automatic transmission, it wouldn’t win too many stoplight grands prix, but it was more than suitable for my mostly-highway daily driving. On weekends, I often filled its cavernous cargo area with old-car swap meet classic-car parts (as well as more typical suburban-homeowner essentials such as mulch, landscape timbers, and the like).
More than big enough to hold Sunbeam parts, even with the rear seat up. Not mine, this example is also equipped with a third-row rear-facing seat (note the partially-visible belts). (Source: www.carsandbids.com)
Compared to my previous 245, the new 740 wagon was a revelation. Its lower belt-line and expansive glass area offered greater visibility. Combined with my preference for a slightly higher driver’s seat position, this really gave an “in-command” feeling, not unlike that sought after by many SUV owners today.
Starting with its all-new dash, the 740’s interior emphasized the horizontal. Legible instruments with much-improved night lighting faced the driver, with radio and climate controls within easy reach in a center console slightly angled toward the driver. Its standard equipment included a manual sunroof, a feature unavailable on the 240 wagon, and one I made frequent use of, especially enjoying its rearward-tilt option, which essentially made it a year-round benefit.
A Volvo station wagon with a manually-operated tilt/slide sunroof! In my opinion, one of the new 745’s standout features. I guess Volvo product planners are easily amused… (Source: www.carsandbids.com)
The ’86 745 GLE was followed by two more 700-series Volvo wagons, cars that remain high on my “top ten” list of daily drivers (including test cars as well as privately-owned rides). They were both 745 Turbos, as you might have suspected. The first, an ’87 model, was finished in black with a black hounds-tooth velour/leather interior. Its B230FT was complemented by Volvo’s M46 four-speed-plus-overdrive manual gearbox, making it an absolute hoot to drive.
A press-kit photo of the ’87 740 Turbo Wagon. The intercooled turbo increased the B230FT’s output to a nice round 160-HP.
With access to Volvo’s Rockleigh, NJ service shop, the car didn’t stay unmolested for long. It gave me an excuse to “test” a ground-effects kit that our Gothenburg colleagues had developed, which comprised new styling elements to the front and rear bumpers, as well as rocker panel add-ons. (A limited number of these kits were later port-installed on “740 Turbo Special Edition” models, both sedans and wagons, after our Parts & Accessories colleagues overestimated the sales potential for the kits as dealer-installed items.)
The ground-effects kit was offered on the low-volume 740 Turbo SE sedans and wagons. This sedan is also equipped with a taillight filler panel. (Source: www.flickr.com)
The Turbo’s standard tires and wheels were shelved in favor of a set of 16-inch alloys (rare and in demand today), shod with Goodyear Gatorbacks similar to those equipped on contemporary Corvettes. They added amazing levels of grip, enabling me to take Palisades Parkway exit ramps at previously impossible speeds, among other juvenile pursuits.
The 740 turbo wagon also made a (brief) name for itself in the SCCA’s Endurance Cup races. The “Baby on Board” stickers can’t be seen in this group photo.
After some 25,000 miles, the one-year-old ’87 was replaced with a nearly-identical ’88 turbo wagon, this one in a slightly less-sinister looking Graphite Metallic exterior, but with the identical black houndstooth upholstery. Unlike its immediate predecessor, it was left stock, but it still provided an entertaining commute.
However, my most memorable Volvo station wagon also turned out to be my last company car before Volvo (by then part of Ford Motor Company’s Irvine, California-based Premier Automotive Group) limited such perks to upper management personnel in one of many period cost-cutting moves. Let’s jump forward nearly twenty years to Gothenburg’s P2X platform, and specifically its top-level station wagon model, the V70R.
The V70R was Volvo’s flagship sporty station wagon during the four model years it was offered (2004-2007).
Added to Volvo’s lineup for the 2004 model year, along with its S60R sedan sibling, the V70R boasted an advertised 300-HP from its turbocharged five-cylinder, delivered to the road via a Haldex all-wheel-drive setup. Its suspension settings could be personalized on the fly through a Computer Controlled Chassis Concept system (“4C”, in Volvo-speak). Amazingly enough, I was fortunate enough to be able to spec a 2007 V70R as my company-provided ride in mid-2006.
It really deserves its own post, which I promise I’ll get to in due time. Meanwhile, I’d be curious to know how many of my CC readers share my affinity for the longroof…
(Featured image from Volvo 1927-2002 – 75 Years, published 2002 by Norden Media)
Coincidentally, at this very moment I’m taking a coffee break at the World of Volvo exhibit in Gothenburg.
I Visited early July, well worth it.
If you’re interested visit the Aeroseum Flight Museum.
Word-nerds call the “taillight filler panel” the “Heckblende”, a German compound noun, the construct being Heck (rear; back) + Blende (cover).
Thanks for a nice story about the blocky Volvo wagons. Although these were never of interest to me (because too blocky) it is good to read about your opinions about it. That later V70R is much nicer to look at by the way.
“personal opinion that wagons frequently just look better than sedans as well.”
Well, yes and no. Usually I think the opposite but then there is the issue of practicality. A wagon always is more practical but (in my opinion) sometimes is less “pleasing to the eye”. What is more important?
Thirty years ago I had the possibility to buy a very rare (LHD at least) Triumph 2000 Mk2 ‘Estate’. At the time I drove a 2000 Mk2 sedan, and I could well envisage appreciating the extended practicalities -I just had a newborn and we all know how much more luggage space is needed.
The thing was that I never liked the wagon versions of these “big” Triumphs much. They are too rounded at the back and miss the characteristic lip above the rear windscreen. So I did not buy it.
But I loved the Subaru 1st gen Legacy wagon, much better styled than the sedan. Same for my current Jaguar X-type wagon, which is very rare here in the Netherlands compared to the sedan. The X sedan tries too much to be a shrinked XJ whereas the wagon is quite stylish.
“The X sedan tries too much to be a shrinked XJ whereas the wagon is quite stylish.”
I always thought (and still do), Jaguar / PAG recycled the Volvo V40 Mk I rear on the X series wagon. Joker may call it even “upcycling”.
I agree with your observation regarding the first-gen V40 and Jaguar X-Type wagon rear ends. Too similar to be a coincidence.
I’m not sure that “upcycling” helped X-Type wagon sales in the U.S. They were quite rare on the road here even when new.
I love wagons, for daily drivers and hobby cars. I have or had a 77 Trabant Kombi, 02 Passat wagon, 77 VW Bus (they called it the station wagon, call it wagon like), and my current daily an 07 Audi A4 Avant. I don’t think all wagons automatically look better. But when done well I prefer it
Blocky, boxy. Those adjectives sound critical. Balanced, practical, and in the case of the V70, perhaps even sleek. I think those descriptions are more appropriate. I prefer the earlier wagons as 140’s; some combination of the slant nose and the fussier detailing of 240’s just detracts from the overall shape. But the 740 wagons are classics of style. And the V70’s combination of a modern more aero nose balanced with a practical roomy rear end is pretty perfect. An Audi Avant looks nice, but too me it’s just a 5 door hatch. As with the 240, the 740 suffered from some fussy details, but the Volvo wagons’ performance variants, backed up by racing success, makes them winners. Unfortunately the price and timing never worked for me. And my wife (and later my kids) had a very negative attitude about Volvo’s. So my parents’ 122S wagon and my own 122S two door were my only Göteberg experiences. Thanks for the post and insights.
We had a 1991 740 Turbo wagon and thoroughly enjoyed it. The dog liked being able to lay down and still look out the (low) rear windows, I enjoyed the turbo motor and the fantastic seats.
And then we had a 2001 V40 Wagon which was very different but also very good in its own right.
Multiple wagons in this household over the years, we too like the bodystyle.
The current Jaguar X-type wagon that my son drives now sports a set of those 17″ V70R wheels from your last image that I found in a junkyard earlier this year for the summer tires whereas the stockers now have the winters. The nice payoff of the Ford ownership of the era is that all kinds of Jaguar, Volvo, Lincoln, and Ford wheels are easily interchangeable.
…as well as the interchangeable rear-end styling of the first-gen Volvo V40 and the Jaguar X-Type wagon, as mentioned above ;}
That’s true although I never realized it before, both the rear ends are my favorite part of both designs and in both cases they really balance out the rest of it. While the Volvo had the wagon variant from the start the Jaguar didn’t although both sort of look like the wagons were designed first and the sedans adapted from there, i.e. the wagon is the better shape.
I’m a fan of the 700 series wagons. The turbo 740 was a very compelling package, one that I would have bought at the time if some circumstances were different.
You didn’t discuss the Volvo rear door dilemma:https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/the-rear-door-dilemma/
This is the problem that affects most wagons: one can either have a rear door that is designed for the sedan version and doesn’t look right in the wagon version, as in the 140/240 series, which resulted in that awkward filler gap at the rear of the door where it curved downward a bit. Volvo went the opposite way with the 700 series, where the rear door was clearly designed to work perfectly for the wagon, but it made the sedan roof line at the rear way to blocky and awkward. I could never get comfortable with the 700 series sedan’s styling for that reason.
In my opinion, the “styling dilemma” of the 700 sedan lies less in the use of the station wagon doors than in the continuation of the side beading in the rear area. This makes the upper area of the rear seem somehow “put on”. Particularly in the side view. It would have been better to iron out this wrinkle.
Good point. That “wrinkle” was finally fixed (a few years too late) with the so-called “backlift” on the 940 sedans, which cleaned up the C-pillar very nicely.
You’re not the only one who viewed the 700-series sedan’s greenhouse styling as awkward, especially behind the rear doors. That may be one area where the GM A-body sedans of the early eighties got those details right, or at least improved them.
Styling very similar, to the same vintage Dodge Dynasty wagon. 🙂
I totally agree with this statement and it’s motivated the majority of my automotive ownership decisions for most of my automobile-owning life. So yes, I guess I could say that I have an affinity for the longroof 🙂
I probably should spend more time in and with the 700 series wagons, but that’s getting more difficult by the day as these seem to be vanishing faster than the 245. In fact, judging from my recent experience at Swedish Car Day up here in MA there are more 245, 145 and heck even Amazons than 740 wagons. I’m headed to the VCoA national meet in a few weeks, and will check back in with whether or not that observation bears up. But I’ve never really been clear on why the 700 series doesn’t have the following that other (earlier) Volvos do.
I do very much like the press kit photo you have the the 740 Turbo Wagon. I’ll also note that I have those exact wheels on my 245 and am currently looking for another set of those plastic center/hubcaps (since they have a propensity for flying off and vanishing on the highway). So, if anyone has a source of those, hit me up.
I had a first generation V70 (P80-based) AWD and it sadly was one of the most technically flawed cars I’ve owned. We got out of it in under 2 years after its second replacement transmission (under warranty). While I’d today probably put up with its “issues” and fight VoA longer, I was at the time also in possession of a 3 year old and an infant, and well, taking the car into the dealer weekly to solve problems just wasn’t in the cards. Still, I recently fought with myself long and hard not to pick up one for sale locally….for $3800, then $3000, then $2000 as the seller fought the good fight to sell it. I test drove it more than once and finally gave up after getting no good explanation for the 4 dash cluster lights that were covered by electrical tape.
Point being, they’re sexy cars (for a longroof lover like me), so common sense is fighting an upward battle so far as not loving these Volvo wagons.
I once had an encounter with the very rarest 745, a car VCNA says should not exist. For a couple years, Volvo offered the B234F engine in the 740 series. That was a DOHC variant of the famous “redblock” engine. It was not very popular for various reasons, one of which was that is was the only interference engine in the series. The other reason was that the power came on high in the rev range, but most of the cars with this engine came with automatics that (mostly) shifted too soon to ever get the power, unless you floored the pedal.
But I once saw a 745 with the B234F and the five-speed M47. It never existed in any brochure, so I’m not sure how it came to be.
Interesting.
It seems to be that the production process for Volvo resulted cars that were not ever intended or admitted to be.
My 1976 245 is a lamda sensor car, it has the computer, but it also bears the door sticker stating that it’s a non-catalyst car…and indeed it has no catalyst. All of that is a mystery and makes no sense. And yet, it sits in my garage. I’ve given up trying to figure it out.
“It seems to be that the production process for Volvo resulted cars that were not ever intended or admitted to be.”
Nothing special about the B234F-engine in a series 700 Volvo. It was introduced under MY 1988 on most European markets. The cars were badged “740 GLT” or “740 GLT 16 Valve” (depending on market).
By the way: The 16 valve mill wasn’t the only interference red block engine. The 2 liter versions B200F and B200FT were interference engines, too.
I’m not an expert on these but a bit of googling seems to indicate that the manual 5 speed came in the 1990 GLE. And why wouldn’t it? The manual 4 speed came standard in the earlier ones.
https://www.google.com/search?q=1990+volvo+740+gle+specs&sca_esv=23188ff84b8e16a4&sca_upv=1&rlz=1CAJFMC_enUS1006US1006&sxsrf=ADLYWIKq9-x_yk2OlBwkrap-RAxKFTwpZA%3A1725843496579&ei=KEjeZoCFI7Hv0PEPjpi0gAg&ved=0ahUKEwiAubSE1LSIAxWxNzQIHQ4MDYAQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=1990+volvo+740+gle+specs&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGDE5OTAgdm9sdm8gNzQwIGdsZSBzcGVjczIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESOMRUMYIWMcOcAF4AJABAJgBkQKgAaEIqgEFMS4wLjS4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgOgAv0DwgIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR8ICBhAAGAcYHsICCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFmAMAiAYBkAYFkgcFMS4wLjKgB5sV&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
Interesting that you prefer wagons “as a car designer”, because it might hint towards that gulf that exists between popular taste and the designers. I hasten to add that I agree with you, but I’m a car nut who reads CC. The vast majority of buyers seems always to have thought that “wagon” equals “undesirable”. Mind you, it’s amusing that the current popular taste is the SUV, all of ’em pretty much wagons…
I’ve always really liked the architectural nature of the 700 wagons: they looked to me like some sophisticated minimalist-modernist open-plan structure, made mobile.
Unfortunately, my one exposure to them was a 940-era 4-cyl atmo wagon, which I thought was just awful to drive. Gutless, noisy, and creaky, I’m interested to know how you (or others here) thought the 700/900 wagons felt in terms of solidity compared to the 240’s. In my own limited exposure to both, the 200 felt like an absolute boulder in comparison.
In Europe wagons became the preferred body style over trunked sedans. VW’s Passat wagon accounted for 70+% of the sales; even higher in non-fleet sales. Sedans came to be seen as very outre. I’m pretty convinced that the 700 series was designed around the wagon first, hence the rear door that suits it perfectly but not the sedan.
It wasn’t quite like that in the US, but imported wagons had a very cool image and high prestige factor; a Mercedes T wagon was at the top of the pecking order in its class. Volvo’s wagon sale sin the US were probably the highest percentage of any import brand; I would speculate possibly higher than the sedans.
Presumably that was not the case in your part of the world?
Volvos being predominantly wagonoid, yes. But otherwise, there was something of a family-truckster attitude to getting a wagon, as in “Oh, I had to get the wagon”, rather than “I preferred it”. Perhaps also the local ones were seen as fleet cars, govt telcos, or tradies’ vehicles. I’ve wrongly projected that onto the world!
The exxy Euro jobs from Audi and Benz certainly have a following, but I’m guessing money makes them pretty niche outside of inner-cities.
“In my own limited exposure to both, the 200 felt like an absolute boulder in comparison.”
Had two 240 wagons, still have a 940 wagon and a 850 wagon. And I would absolutely confirm your impression.
The 240 “somehow” gives you a feeling of bullet proofness which the 940 can’t. I even dare to say that the 850 feels more substantial than the 940 does.
Nonetheless the 940 isn’t a bad car at all. Very few troubles in all the years and the lowest maintenance costs of all cars I ever had.
I like wagons and I like Volvos but somehow the combination never gelled. My parents never owned a wagon and only had the one Volvo 164. I’ve never owned a Volvo and apart from Mazda5 never owned a wagon. FWIW my wife likes the looks of the V40 so we may yet have a Volvo long roof. FWIW my son has taken a liking to the extra long roof since he has owned two Suburbans