(Volvo love isn’t exactly universal. The following piece may strike some readers as an odd piece to feature in a Volvo tribute week, but for others it will offer a refreshing perspective. There is no one way of looking at a car, and this is especially true at CC. -ED)
Volvos, from the 1970s and 1980s at least, get a mixed press from many spheres, ranging from strong acceptance and fondness to strong dislike. Certainly, I don’t think it can suggested that the Volvo range in, say, 1985, comprised entirely of good cars, especially when it included this, the 360GLT.
The beloved cars I’m referring to above are, basically, the 144/145, the 240/244/245 and the bulky, often underpowered 740 series. Cars that were awkwardly styled, with potentially elegant, simple shapes bespoiled by those immense bumpers, the consequent impression of bulk for the sake of bulk, even on such details as the lights, aerials and rub strips. Such loudly proclaimed safety features became the first thing many people thought of when the word “Volvo” was mentioned.
Behind this, the car was actually considered to be no more than ordinary, but with good corrosion resistance. The press was able to highlight fundamental failings, such as the poor roadholding and handling, the disappointing space utilisation, unremarkable engines, performance and economy. Perhaps was the worst aspect was the image the cars got, and with which the owners therefore got labelled, as either the thinking man’s saloon (perhaps in the University car park in Eugene) or much more likely, as the conveyance of those with a slightly selfish, self interested, blinkered view that dictated a bigger car than necessary, and a certain wannabe premium feel with the inconsistent twist of “Swedish care for the environment” on top.
Volvo often got a reasonable run from the press, with the safety and durability of the cars being respected. In the UK, CAR magazine did not share this stance. Looking back, it was a conflicted brand in the 1970s. The 262C Bertone Coupe just about sums it up. In contrast, SAAB pulled the respectable, innovative, safety-oriented image much more effectively.
Volvo’s 300 series gave us these same values in a smaller package, with the added promise of economy. The 340 and 360 range (also known as the 300 series and initially as the 343 and 345) was not originally intended to be a Volvo, but a DAF. DAF are now (and were then) better known as a heavy truck manufacturer, and are now part of the PACCAR group. DAF had been producing trucks of various shapes and sizes since the 1920s, but the in the 1960s, this Dutch company was producing a range of small cars, whose key distinguishing feature was the continuously variable belt drive transmission, known as Variomatic, the first automotive use of a CVT or AVT transmission. CC has a good guide the Variomatic here, in Robert Kim’s spot of a DAF 66 estate in Stockholm.
The DAF story starts with the 1959 DAF 600: a compact (81 inch wheelbase) two-door saloon with a flat twin 750cc engine and rear drive. This car was gently updated through the 1960s, to ultimately become the DAF 33 saloon. This was still clearly a derivative of the original 1959 DAF 600, although with a Michelotti facelift. Probably a charming enough little car for pottering around, but against a Mini, a Renault 4 or even a Beetle, certain weaknesses are apparent. A frequently heard association was between the DAF and rubber bands, as well as observations about the unusual engine noise pattern, with the gearing changing as the car accelerated, rather than the engine speed.
DAF followed up with the larger 44 series in 1966. This had the same flat twin engine, with the spare wheel stowed on top, driving the rear wheels through the same Variomatic system and swing axle rear suspension, carried on a longer 88 inch wheelbase. This in turn was supplemented by the visually similar 55 series in 1967, which had a water cooled 1100 cc Renault four-cylinder engine and torsion bar front suspension.
In 1974, the 66 arrived, with another facelift to the 44 series body and an improved version of the Variomatic transaxle, now coupled with a de Dion tube and leaf spring rear suspension, eliminating any side to side movement of the rear axle, and an option of a 1300cc Renault engine. This car was the mainstay of DAF in 1975, when Volvo bought the company’s autobile division. DAF had looking for a partner since 1970 to develop a larger car, and in 1973 Volvo had bought a stake before taking full ownership in 1975.
The fruit of this partnership was the Volvo 343: a rear-drive three-door hatchback, using the Variomatic and a 1.4 litre Renault engine, on a wheelbase of 94 inches (similar to a 1974 Golf) and with the de Dion tube and leaf spring rear suspension. Conceptually, it was a bigger DAF 66, with much more modern if not elegant styling, that was originally to be called the DAF 77.
Some reports credit the styling to Michelotti, others to an in-house team led by John de Vries, claiming its selection by a ballot of DAF employees in 1970, over designs by Bertone and Michelotti. The initial versions were recognised by the big bug like headlights, an almost flat bonnet and front wing line, and a long front overhang, especially for a rear drive car. The rest of the styling could be summarised as dumpy, with the car looking to be one size too big for its compact wheelbase. The engine was, as noted, from Renault, and was an enlarged version of the engine fitted to the 66, and also used in the Renault 12 and 18, still with the spare wheel stored alongside it.
As Volvo consolidated its control, the original DAF styling and branding were replaced by Volvo’s own, resulting in bigger bumpers and a safety emphasis on the interior fittings, which were alot more solid than might otherwise have been expected. It was finally launched at the Geneva Motor Show in April 1976.
The initial cars were not that great. For a start, the (Europe only) market demanded a conventional gearbox, rather than the unfamiliar (and noisy) CVT, and stronger performance. There were quality issues all over the car, from the heating system, to cold starting, to leaks and dashboard faults. In 1978, a four-speed manual gearbox was made available, installed as a rear transaxle, in the space otherwise taken by the CVT. As Robert Kim pointed out in his feature on the DAF66, the CVT was not very space efficient–it required a longitudinal engine and a large amount of space at the rear for the gearbox, and this was still the case in the 343.
In 1979, the five-door 345 was introduced, followed a year later by an enlarged 1.7 litre Renault engine and in 1984, by a Renault 1.6 litre diesel engine. Thankfully, Britain was spared this, as the diesel was only offered in LHD drive markets.
Volvo added the four-door saloon in 1983, with an added rear boot so clearly bolted onto to the original design you could almost see the join. It has a the same rear doors and same roof line. Dull does not go far enough.
At the same time as the saloon, Volvo managed to squeeze the 2.0 litre B19 engine into the 340, to create the 360 saloon and hatchback. To achieve this, the spare wheel moved from the under bonnet location to the boot, and the main drive shaft was placed in a torque tube, requiring a larger (and larger than comparable cars’) transmission tunnel through the car, exacerbating already poor space efficiency. Some argue the gearbox location gave good weight distribution; another view is that there was too much weight there anyway. The base car weighed thirty percent more than a base Golf, in 1976.
The quality of the cars got better as production continued, as it normally does. But these cars were never as well built as a larger Volvo, with corrosion and detail electrical faults (for example) being much more of a problem than in other series, as well as long-running issues with the Renault engines.
The big issue with these cars is not my preference for front wheel drive in this market (given its space efficiencies and packaging benefits combined with the proven ability to still create a car that is good to drive, it seems an absolute default for a better car in so many ways) but the fact that this car was outdated in 1976, with subpar road performance and quality next to the contemporary competition, and inferior comfort and space utilisation. It was simply not a good car; indeed, without the CVT and the Volvo badge, it would almost certainly have sunk without trace in Europe by 1980.
The Volvo image had always been a bit mixed: estate cars, safety and a dull driving experience sum it up pretty well, at least until the 850 and S40 came along. The 340/360 had all these, but with fewer safety features than the larger cars and without an estate option. But, and it is a big but, the safety features offered by Volvo were focussed on passive safety (protecting passengers and pedestrians in the event of an accident) rather than active safety (avoiding accidents). Features like good seat belts, laminated windscreens and managed crumple zones are all good things, but good road holding, brakes and visibility are all features that help prevent accidents, and which Volvos such as the 240/260 and 340/360 did not have.
But the Volvo badge counted for something, particularly in northern Europe and Scandinavia. For some reason I cannot fathom, (and am actually embarrassed about) the 340/360 made frequent trips into the sales top ten in Britain in the early 1980s. It somehow, despite all its failings, achieved a reputation, if not a strong image, as a valid and credible Golf alternative, with an image ahead of any Ford or GM product. Quite how is, frankly, very puzzling. For a car so full of compromises, from the bought-in engine to the forced “safety” styling features, from the subpar road behaviour to the less than competitive quality, its success is a surprising achievement. The market it served, in the UK at least, was dominated by the older and often conservative buyer, some no doubt downsizing from a 244.
The car actually soldiered on until 1991, long after the replacement 440/460 series had come on line. Volvo also made some vans (essentially a five-door hatch with no rear windows or seats) for the Dutch post office but never offered an estate. A total of 1.13 million were built, almost all in Holland, with a small number built from CKD kits in Malaysia.
The featured car is a 1987 360GLT–the two-litre version with sports pretensions offered on UK ebay in April 2014. But, please, do not confuse this for a credible Golf GTi or Alfa 75 competitor.
I lived in the Netherlands in 1984 and remember these cars pretty well. The earlier DAFs were all over the place, although that perception may have been exaggerated by how different they were to all the little hatchbacks. I also remember CAR’s regard for Volvo. In the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, they summed up Volvo as the second safest car from Sweden. They had a great sense of humor, even if their car buying advice was practically worthless.
I agree – CAR’s buying advice and caustic summaries were often a bit too far, but made their point as exaggeration can do, and struck a dfifference to the more relxed Autocar and Motor.
And Holland should be respected for challenging conventions too.
Who else’s national car was as fast in reverse as in drive? Even their motor racing was backwards.
“For some reason I cannot fathom, (and am actually embarrassed about) the 340/360 made frequent trips into the sales top ten in Britain in the early 1980s. Quite how is, frankly, very puzzling. ”
As I understand it, it appealed to a certain kind of conservative group of buyers. Those that wanted to replace their Morris Marinas with something similar, but couldn’t find a decent domestic product. Austin-Rover didn’t make a replacement for the Marina. Ford had abandonded their conservative Cortina for the jellybean Sierra. And Vauxhall had gone fwd with the Cavalier. The Volvo 300-series appeared to be a modern equivalent to the Morris Marina, but better built and more reliable. And that was what they were looking for. If I’m not mistaken, this Volvo was on the UK top ten list for the entire 80’s. And that’s really quaint, if not outright bizarre.
Probably not: folk wanting a Marina replacement had the execrable AustinRover Maestro and Montego to go for after all. Or they could always go for electroconvulsive therapy 😀
I think many (if not most) of the 340s sold in the UK were sold to people like my parents: moderately well off families who’d had a strong positive experience with the 240 and wanted either a second car, or a smaller replacement without compromising on the perceived quality and safety.
Keep in mind that according to traffic accident data in the UK at the time, if you rode a motorcycle you had a greater chance of being pranged and put into hospital by the driver of a Volvo than any other brand. To the point that its still synonymous in the UK that a Volvo driver is: 1. The motorcyclists worst enemy, and 2. A completely unobservant prat who’s a danger to any other traffic on the road. After all, when you’re driving the safest car available, you don’t have to worry about anyone else on the road with you. Or, for that matter, if there is any other traffic on the road.
When I rented my first Hinckley Triumph in Bristol in January 1995, the nice lady at the dealership immediately warned me to watch out for Volvo drivers.
She wasn’t kidding – try to visualize the classic American blue hair in a Buick, only less observant and a worse driver. Almost twenty years later, and I still assume that Volvo the next lane over neither notices I’m in traffic, nor does he care to.
Guess that’s why I’ve never owned a Volvo. Between my late wife and myself, we came to the conclusion that they’re cars for motorcycle-hating Commies.
In certain circles in the UK that was definitely the perception. But keep in mind the insidious influence of class in everything that is said and done in this damp little island.
Volvos in the UK in the 80s and 90s were an exclusively middle class thing, and an unusually obvious and noticeable one. Anyone who knew even a little about cars knew they were relatively expensive, and everyone could spot one, so they attracted a kind of sublimated resentment in certain quarters, leading to the faintly snarky stereotype your nice lady in the Triumph dealers indulged in.
Don’t get me wrong: just like the aggressive BMW driver there are plenty of true to life examples that backed it up, but I don’t think it’s fair to say most Volvo drivers were this unobservant – many were and still are considerate drivers.
As for the “accident data” that’s new to me, but assuming it’s not entirely made up perhaps the motorcyclists hit by other brands were more likely to be killed outright? (rather than making it to hospital) It’s a dangerous hobby after all
In much the same vein, the Cadillac Escalade is the Enemy of All Bicyclists. I wish I was joking, but I’m not. When I’m on my bike, I definitely watch out for those rolling living rooms.
Funny you should mention the 80′s/90′s era perception of Volvo drivers as craving safety due to their lack of piloting competence! That was 100% my perception at the time. In my only accident (while I was driving at least) my stationary vehicle was struck in the breakdown lane by a Volvo driver who thought I was merging into the roadway. The police wrote it up as if I was merging into the roadway based on her feedback … I guess Volvo drivers are more trusty witnesses too!
Mind you, now I own a Volvo and am probably perceived the same way by my fellow motorists …
And, as any economist will tell you, unsafe driving is the least costly for those driving the safest cars. 🙂
Grief that’s a harsh write up on the poor little 300 series Roger.
My parents had an ’88 340 saloon (4 door) as one of their earlier second cars and I’ve nothing but pleasant memories of the pale green beastie.
Sure it wasn’t in any way exciting, or chic, but it was solid and comfortable. The 1.7l mill in ours seemed to give it perfectly long enough legs for motorway journeys while it seated our family of five pretty comfortably. Visibility, brakes and road holding were all competent for a mid-size family hauler.
More than that there was a distinct feel of solidity about it. I’d dispute it as being “outdated by 1976”. Among its predecessors in our family stable was a real 70s stalwart: the N10 Datsun Cherry and the 340 felt decades more advanced by comparison.
Sure, it’s a dumpy looking oddball of a car, but there’s a good reason the 340 featured high in the UK charts: it gave buyers Volvo solidity, safety and quality in a UK friendly size. Personally I find it telling too that they’re among the few 80s cars I still see in regular daily use – I can’t remember the last time I saw a Mk3 Ford Escort outside of a car show, or an “E” generation Vauxhall Astra at all! But there are a couple of old 340s still chugging happily around Edinburgh as I type, being simple, sturdy transport. There’s something to be said for that.
Agreed. Really, there was nothing wrong with the 300 series, regardless its image. A Volvo for Joe Average, a well built, roomy and safe car. Later on they also got more powerful 2.0 liter engines.
Look at this, a 2.0 liter with some nice rims, it looks just like an Alfa…
Source photo: http://www.volvo300club.nl/auto.php?autoid=302
There may have been good ones in the range eventually, but not the one I had. A 343 that was by a long way the worst car I’ve ever owned. The heaviness combined with the poor Renault engine and CVT made for an appallingly sluggish car with terrible fuel economy. The handling was terrible, and I had a good chunk of the reliability issues mentioned in the article. I have never been so relieved to get rid of a car.
Don’t worry – I’m planning a Morris Marina CC soon….
Must you? 🙂
The sad lad down my street had a Starsky & Hutch Marina!Truly awful beyond belief
I was hoping for a CC on the 340/360, my mother owned 3 340s in a row in the 80s/90s. Later my father got a 440, but it wasn’t as interesting a car as these. My parents were a bit young for these cars though, being in their 30s, the 340/360 especially is known as an old person’s car, though that does mean pristine examples pop up from time to time.
Because they’re one of the cheapest RWD cars you can get these are popular with amateur drifters/racers right now; I’ve also seen some 2.3 turbo swaps which seems like it’d make for an awesome sleeper.
Also, Volvo has always been cash strapped. Like AMC, they have always been forced to make as much use as possible of the resources they had. They acquired Daf for the Variomatic, and got an almost production ready car at the same time. And there was just so much they could do before they had to churn them out. The 1981 update with the Volvo engines is the car they should’ve made already in 1976. Though, why they continued with it after the 440 in 1988 boggles my mind. On the other hand, the 440 wasn’t a good car either, especially not for ’88. They had prototypes running already in ’82, so that car was six years in the making at least.
It’s funny to me that the 850 and 400-series were born out of the same development project. The 850 felt like a 740 with a better engine and more weight in the front, but I can’t imagine the 400-series, with its big car feel and Renault engines, was any good at all. The 360, with a Volvo engine, seems like it must’ve been better than the 400.
The 300/400-series were never seen as “real” Volvos by the die hard Volvo fans. Or even by the people in general, at least in Sweden. They were always looked down upon. And they never had the production quality of the Swedish-built Volvos. It’s like the eternal question with Porsche fans, what constitutes a “real” Porsche. Like the 924/944, or even that the 928 was never “real” in that sense. Or the Cayenne today.
Well, the 400 series at least had a Volvo-designed chassis. The engine may have been from Renault, but otherwise, it was all Volvo.
The Van Doorne brothers, Hub and Wim, were smart guys.
Initially, in the early thirties, the letters and brand name DAF stand for Van Doorne’s Aanhangwagen Fabriek. An aanhangwagen is a trailer and a fabriek is a factory. That’s what they built, trailers and semi-trailers. But they already knew that some day they would become car and truck builders, yes, builders of real “automobiles”. Their dream, their ultimate goal. Developing, engineering and building cars and trucks in their own tiny country.
So, from the moment they started building “automobiles” DAF meant Van Doorne’s Automobiel Fabriek. Same brand name, other products. Truck production started in 1949, cars followed in the late fifties.
By the way, Hub van Doorne was a technical genius.
Yup, I put the Van Doorne brothers and Robert BC Noorduyn on my shrine to stubborn Dutch guys who got the job done.
Some of the truck designs that Hub came up with are truly outrageously brilliant, but Wim has one of my favourite quotes when asked to explain why the variomatic transmission never caught on:
“People are stupid”
Can’t help it, I’m a bit of a DAF (truck) worshipper….
All the time, being a kid, I spent in and around a 1967 DAF like this one. Very fond memories indeed.
A “Kikkerdaf”, a frog-eyed DAF. That thing was indestructible !
Nice trucks but…. the Foden versions featured proper Jacobs engine brakes not the step on exhaust brake DAFs have, same truck under the badging though
I was assigned this one for a while 2012, 510hp 18sp RR manual nice truck to drive.
Ah ! The DAF 75/85 CF series, their midsizer. Tatra and Ginaf also use that cab and its PACCAR (read DAF) engines.
That’s a sweet DAF Bryce. Is that a 6×4 bulk hauler/grain tipper ?
I also spent a lot of time in and around a circa 1975 DAF FAS 2200 grain tipper (FAS is DAF-language for a 6×2 straight truck with a liftable tag axle). It had removable side boards so you could use it as a flatbed truck too. The gearbox was a Fuller 13 speed, DAF never built its own gearboxes for the trucks.
RR, is that (Fuller) Road Ranger ?
Ha. Or, in more modern language, “it’s not me, it’s you.”
As to the UK sales success of the 340/360, allow me to speculate on one possible reason:
When the predominant home brand is British Leyland, its easy to look brilliant in the marketplace.
Both funny, and true… Except BL had basically sunk by this point. The Ford Escort and Vauxhall Astra were the 340’s main competition for most of its successful run on the UK market.
It filled a niche that nothing else really did.
My neighbour bought a talking MG Maestro,proof you should never buy a Mk1 anything.The Volvo was a huge improvement on the abominations BL was churning out
Quite – up against a Maestro you can see an attraction, if only for the reputation
Indeed – the early 1980s were a dark time for BL, to say the least. And Chrysler Uk had gone (bascially) and Vauxhall was not uniformly great either.
I dunno, Rog, the 360 always seemed kinda cool to me. With a 1.9 liter redblock and rear mounted transaxle, I’m sure some boosted, modified variants are easy to cobble together and a good deal of fun. In the US, though, we never had to suffer it in stock, naturally aspirated form (or in any form).
I almost wish Volvo had used a deDion engine in its larger cars, but even still, the 740 (which you also dismissed as undesirable) had a very well-located rear axle (and, in my experience, good steering) which made it quite a bit of fun. And while I can understand calling the 300 series (edit: 700 series) dull, in the US, they most certainly were not.
What? I’m fairly certain we never had the 300 series here in the US…
I meant to write 700.
Hi Perry, techically, it had some interesting features, like th eCVT and rear suspension, but the whole was so far the from sum of its parts it can’t be considered a good car.
“a deDion engine ” – typo, surely? deDion rear end, and I’m with you.
The only person I knew who bought one worked with me in the 80s.He was called Malcolm and was a 47 year old train spotting bachelor who still lived with his mother.Malcolm and his Volvo were made for each other.
Exactly the image this car has, fairly or unfairly
Roger, I absolutely love your articles and it is refreshing having a UK perspective on this site. I grew up reading a lot of Car, What Car and sometimes Autocar, so I have some rudimentary knowledge of the UK auto industry. Fortunately, you have the same solid writing abilities as many UK auto journalists but without their catty bitchiness. I’ll never understand why so many UK auto journalists insist on being so unpleasant and derisive, especially over anything American. But, Car is one of the best auto magazines in the world (fortunately, Australia’s Wheels is also up there now, too).
It’s just an attitude, a sort of verbal posing. And their attitude is never meant to be taken seriously. It’s a kind of entertainment. Especially the Top Gear set.
I like those that are not only over enthusiastic but inspiring as well. Like Tiff Needell, and his latter day successor Chris Harris. To them, it’s all about passion.
x2
Try reading the UK music press … talk about eating your young!
Hell, NME was like that 40 years ago. I’ll still never forget their attitude regarding the ‘expected’ success of Cockney Rebel.
I still read Kerrang!
Wow, I thought Volvo built nothing but bricks in the 70s and 80s. Am I ever getting schooled this week.
An enjoyable writeup, Roger. I have a soft spot for a guy who cannot help but unload on some poor innocent little car. Confession may be good for the soul, but the venting of one’s spleen can certainly be good for one’s heart and blood pressure. (Although Tom Klockau man not agree.) 🙂
Volvo when I went to Aussie seemed to be the car for incompetent drivers any queue of slow traffic would have a Volvo meandering along in front of it, the elderly bought them or still had them those with too much money bought Volvos the nickname North Shore Valiant was bestowed on them this despite Robbie Francevic showing Aussies they could go fast with a competent driver, BMWs got the same image a Kiwi went to OZ and flew a 635 at great speed but of course yuppies bought the slow versions like 3s and drove like morons in them.
The few people I knew who bought Volvos copped a lot of flack for their decisions but also got a good run from them and Kiwi Inky Tulloch had the fastest race truck in Australasia for a while also a Volvo, so I developed a grudging respect for the brand.
These smaller Volvos are quite rare in NZ nowdays not that they were ever popular but there seem very few left Ive seen one since CC kicked off, at the Wheels with attitude show in the parking lot. I have seen a couple of diesels for sale on TM so they did get built RHD but having Renault mechanicals doesnt help sales here at all.
Another informative article on a Volvo I never knew about. Probably as a wise move not to see this in the US. Does seem like it would be equal to or better than much of they British product of the time, but never having lived in England or Europe only a guess. Interesting Volvo’s were the Buick blue hair cars in the 70’s and 80’s. I wonder how many motorcycle riders were hit by Buick, Cadillac, and later Camrey in the US. I know I have dodged and been left turned in front of and whipped around a few pulling out of side streets without looking. Then there was the time a freshly body repaired Olds got as far as the dealership driveway when the elderly driver was T-boned on the way out. I never thought Volvo has a problem with brakes, didn’t all 240’s come with 4 wheel disc’s long before others. Our 240 (89) stopped fine and had no brake problems. Great story, and you have an interesting writing style I enjoy.
Volvo with renault5 engine!oooooooooooooom,no thanks.
To my eyes, this seriously looks like a late 80s Hyundai with a Volvo grille slapped on….
This is my favourite piece of yours, Roger. I’m pretty hardcore iRoller, but the 343 always felt to me like the interloper, the not so bright child who against the scholarship winners. The design carries the same as the Alfa 33 and the first Fiat 128 Coupe with that kickup rear, but the bulged front clip makes it look too dorky. De Vries did a sketch with a face looking very ESV. I love that picture of the red van with the blanked out doors.
I found myself thinking reading the article, “Ahh, so this was Volvo’s answer to the AMC Pacer…”
This might be unfair.
Unfair, maybe. Funny, yes.
Volvo’s engender a unique species of human being. First and foremost, they are intensely loyal. They make good old cars to own (up to the 740 anyway) because they can be wrenched on with simple tools by almost anyone. The Red Block motors are the stuff of legend, the cars are built like tanks of high quality materials and the interiors generally very nice. They are widely perceived as being safer than other cars. This makes them perfect for auto-know-nothings, who tend to have the driving skills of a fence post. Yes, they last long, so there are loads of blue-beehivers on in them on pension day. I thus always avoid old Volvo’s, because they always seem to be driven by really elderly people or stoned-over hippy/granolas.
I have heard many extol the Virtue of the Volvo but I never liked the way the cars drove. They were just kind of crude. The last 740 I drove, a really low km one, too, just felt so darned archaic. Sure, it was cool looking and in great shape for the money, it just didn’t handle that well. I would have bought it is a teenager’s first car, though, had I the need.
Was the 360 a captive import for Volvo? Because EVERY time I see that model, it looks EXACTLY like a 1st gen 1977-80 Mazda GLC… especially from the rear area and nose. Although, we never got em in the states.
it was all their own work, except the Renault engine
I’ve seen these when I’ve been to Britain and Europe, but never knew much about them — other than that, like Alfa’s Alfasud, these smaller Volvos were a Europe-only entry-level series that North America didn’t get. I always figured (on those rare occasions I thought about it at all) that it made economic sense for Volvo and Alfa to send only their largest, costliest models across the Atlantic; I didn’t know that in Volvo’s case it was also because these (somewhat awkward-looking) four-bangers were rather disappointing vehicles, below the standards we expect from the Swedes. There really seems to have been no reason to buy one over a VW Golf or the many better, cheaper econoboxes coming out of Japan at that time.
As for Volvo’s safety being used as a cover for lousy drivers, I’ve heard this but don’t know if it’s statistically true. I do know that in the late ’80s, doing highway speeds on a curving two-lane highway concrete ramp with concrete dividers on both sides, a Volvo changed lanes right into where I was driving my Fiat Spyder 2000. Not cut me off: tried to occupy the exact space my car was occupying. If not for quick reflexes — both my own and Fiat’s nimble handling — I would have not have been able to maneuver in time. I’ve been very forunate with no major accidents in all my years of driving, but a quarter-century on I still remember that time I almost got Bricked into the wall as the closest I’ve ever come to dying behind the wheel.
The 340/360 may not have been a very good car, but where it scored was that it was a very good used car. My wife bought a 1989 340 1.7 GLE (the one with electric windows and a sunroof) hatch in 1992 – it had been the Borough Engineer’s lease car in the council where she worked and was available at an attractive price – and granted it replaced a 1978 Lada, so any shortcomings would have been less apparent to her, it couldn’t be faulted for what it did over the next 8 years.
She regularly drove it 80-100+ miles a day for work over five years, and it never missed a beat. When in 1998 a relative’s low mileage Citroen AX came available, the 340 was sold to me for £700 – my old VW Passat having been pranged – and it was still driving perfectly well – cruising faultlessly at 75-80 mph all day and perfectly capable of a sustained 90 on the North Wales Expressway when no-one was looking – when it was taken off the road in 2001 needing too many things doing all at once. Since it had by then done 200,000+ miles, I couldn’t complain. I doubt if many cars with 180,000 miles on the clock would have taken 6000 miles in 5 weeks in their stride as it did when I was quartering the country following up job possibilities in 1999.
That wasn’t the end as it was sold for a few pounds to a farmer as something for him to run around the fields with hay bales, agrochemicals, sheep etc. in the back and for all I know it still is…
It couldn’t be faulted for toughness – it survived hitting a roadkill deer on the A12 one night and a concrete fence post that had been shed by a lorry a year or two later – the suspension needed repair and two of the wheels had to be replaced but I doubt if a contemporary competitor such as a Fiat Tipo or a Ford Escort IV would have taken that sort of attack in its stride.
Also its admittedly 1970 technology meant it was the last of my cars I could easily maintain and fix myself – I wouldn’t care to try replacing the radiator in my current Citroen C5.
So while it might have been a DAFt buy (as CAR magazine put it – boom boom) new, as a used purchase it made a huge amount of sense on a durability and bang-per-buck basis.
And one more thing – you could play high energy dance music loud in it and nobody imagined it could possibly be coming from a 340 – they just looked disapprovingly at the nearest Vauxhall Nova.
F104 OPU, aka the Valkyrie – ave atque vale.
Great story. Real life vs car journalists with their “dynamic road handling” wannabe-race-driver-stories. As if Joe Average gives a damn about 0-60 and how fast it can go through mountain road corners.
What an extremely biased report, a concentration on the early faults when production was low, massive inaccuracies and barely a mention of any of the positive points, such as the world leading reliability of the Volvo engined 360. Saying handling is not as good as the class leader for the time is saying nothing, this opinion carries no useful information. I can tell you that actually the car handled very well in comparison to many other similar sized cars of the time, escorts, fiats, vaxhauls etc. The dedion tube allows negative camber, the main disadvantage of rear wheel drive against fwd. The weight distribution and rear gearbox allows lots more handling in good hands. Admiditly fwd works better in unskilled hands except when out of control when you need to do the opposite of what’s natural and keep your foot in.