In the early 1970s, Volvo really started hitting its stride in the U.S. market. In addition to the brand’s burgeoning reputation for safety, the conservative, practical, well-built cars offered a nice compromise between performance and economy. As such, they became increasingly popular with well-heeled American buyers seeking upscale “anti-Detroit” offerings. Road Test Magazine took a look at the latest from Volvo in April 1971, evaluating the new fuel injected automatic 140 Series 2-door that was just arriving in the U.S.
It’s funny to see Road Test ascribe aggressive, obnoxious drivers to the Volvo brand—that imagery has now firmly transferred to become the stereotype of BMW owners. Today, at least in my observation, Volvo drivers are usually gently nudging their Sino-Scandinavian steeds carefully along at 5 MPH below the posted speed limit. How times change…
While heavy non-power steering would seem to be off-putting to many Americans in the early 1970s, it was probably a badge of honor for Volvo owners, reinforcing the reverse snob appeal of the “non-American” approach to driving. After all, Volvos were machines needing to be mastered with muscle, rather than the feather-light finger-tip control offered by Detroit’s power steering systems.
Volvo did take a page from Detroit with the column shifter for the automatic. Road Test noted that it seemed out of place in the 142E, especially since no front bench seats were on offer. Soon enough all Volvos would have their shifters on the floor. The ribbon speedometer and reliance on warning lights instead of gauges was another Detroit-style touch that didn’t quite fit the nature of the European car.
Unlike the heavy steering, the brakes were light in feel, but incredibly effective in operation. Stopping power was excellent, and Volvo was to be commended for focusing on critical elements of the car’s performance as the top priority.
Road Test gave especially high praise to the multi-adjustable front seats in the Volvo. For the time they were exceptionally well designed and comfortable—and great seats are a Volvo brand attribute that continues today. Volvo was also noted for being a pioneer in safety systems, including the 3-point seat belts—a novelty in 1971, and it’s funny to see the Road Test editors needing to consult the owners manual to learn how to properly use them.
As for the “E” (derived from the German word Einspritzer) denoting fuel injection on the 142, it worked very well. The car had competent performance and reasonable emissions under all driving conditions. Road Test noted the biggest challenge might be service, as fuel injection was still rare—the editors noted that widespread understanding and easy repairs of the systems would come when U.S. makers adopted the technology. Given the benefits of fuel injection, it was actually rather shocking that Detroit actually dragged their feet as long as they did—it would be another full decade before the set-up would start to appear with any significant regularity on American brands.
Longevity was also an enormous claim to fame for Volvo. The cars were solidly built and durable, with 6-digit odometers (U.S. cars didn’t dare go that high at the time) allowing owners to gleefully note that were racking up over 100,000 miles and their cars were still going strong.
The $4,621 ($27,171 adjusted) price tag put the 142E well into premium territory for what was a “small” car. But the price was very much in line with what a buyer would have shelled out for a basic Chrysler Newport, Mercury Monterey or Oldsmobile Delta 88, none of which could match the pragmatic, functional benefits of the Volvo. The 140 Series was pitch perfect for college professors and other upscale iconoclasts of the early 1970s. No wonder sales soared—1971 was Volvo’s best yet in the U.S., where 48,222 of the sensible Swedes found homes stateside.
Additional Reading:
1972 Volvo 142E – Another Brick in Eugene
1972 Volvo 144E – Volvo’s Blueprint For The Next Thirty Years
I wasn’t aware that Bendix had the patent on that EFI system; I thought it all originated from Bosch AG since the Germans were FI pioneers before. But it makes sense, as Bendix was behind Chrysler’s “Electrojector” in the ’50s.
Bendix got absorbed into Honeywell, another company whose technology we may use every day without thinking about it. In a way similar to screenwriters, suppliers hardly ever get credit for technologies trumpeted by the major manufacturers.
Mention of heavy brakes reminds me of German discs, which typically have more area than others, particularly important in German driving conditions.
If I remember correctly, the seats in Volvos featured prominently in advertisements in magazines for several years and were purportedly designed with the help of orthopedists…..or am I think of Saab?
As far as Detroit dragging their feet on fuel injection and other technology, I think a lot of that had to do with maximizing their bottom line and the idea/assumption that customers didn’t want cars that were complex/finicky. I remember growing up and having a few relatives saying they would never own a car with cruise control as they were afraid the car would “run amuck” and they would wind up half way up a tree somewhere.
The only modern technology I am (currently) dubious about is electrically assisted steering. Looking on several websites I get the idea that the motors have a high early fail rate. And I’m really dubious about brake by wire which is coming next.
Since I keep my cars FOREVER, I don’t want a complex or finicky car either. Just give me points (or a basic electronic ignition) and manual everything else, although I do have power steering using a traditional pump on several. After 40 years complex and finicky sucks. I can tell you my two Taureses require more replacement parts than my 70’s cars do. And their harder to get to and change. Give me plain u-joints over CV joints any day.
Every German “Fahrschule” I saw had a phantom model of a car’s driveline in the front window. Unless this was just for show, are any American driving schools as concerned about teaching the technical aspects of cars? (Test question: Describe the Otto cycle).This might have contributed to general American ignorance/fear of new automotive technology. It doesn’t help that manufacturers often released innovations prematurely.
Like other forms of American education, standards are low so most people can pass. Can’t have any elitism here!
I was watching DW-NEWS….I guess almost 2 years ago when they had a news story about commercial truck drivers. (I was in school working on a truck driver’s license, so it got my attention.) Anyway, they mentioned how long the truck driver’s training took and how much it cost. When I mentioned to my fellow students, who were hoping to get jobs driving after graduation to quickly pay for their school….they were surprised by the in-depth training needed in Germany.
In the U.S. there are schools that claim they will train you to drive a tractor trailer in 3 weeks or approximately 120 hours. The school I chose was given by a technical college and the course is 8 weeks/320 hours.
But here is the kicker, and something to think about when you see a tractor trailer on the road, my 1st prospective employer BOUGHT the school that trains you in 3 weeks/120 hours as they (apparently?) preferred a lot of drivers quickly rather than a few drivers that were good/somewhat experienced.
And yes, unfortunately American drivers/car buyers want dead reliable cars that aren’t much more than 4 wheeled appliances that require almost no attention….for better or worse.
My truck driver training took 2 months at the company that hired me. Today they do just want warm bodies to fill seats, thats why so many new trucks are automatics. However, I take a lot of pride in my professionalism in my chosen career path, and can say in 21 plus years I’ve never had a on road accident. A couple of minor parking lot incidents when I was new, but that’s all. So not all of us with poor American training are road dangers.
Over here automatic truck transmissions cause more problems than they solve and have to be driven in manual mode as you should, some of the shift software is incredibly useless in hilly terrain, but of course if you cant drive a manual your not going to know what to tell the autoshift to do as it cant see the one in eight downgrade your facing so it doesnt know to downshift and apply the retarder.
I’m old enough to remember when CVTs and turbos were reliability nightmares, so I’m still wary of them.
Howard, my ION has drive by wire and electric power steering. Seems like voodoo to me. I just had the recall done on the PS motor, and while the center mounted gauges were immediately user friendly, it took two weeks to adjust to the feel of the steering.
It was much like driving the 66 Mercury Montclair my parents owned. And not much change with the new one. Sort of like steering through cotton.
Many reviewers have claimed a dislike for the lack of feel with EPS.
And “brake by wire” ? I’m not sure I’m on board with that, unless it has non wired standard over ride should there be an electrical glitch.
I read a few British magazines as well as American ones and a few (a VERY few) manufacturers have pretty good electric power steering….Porsche’s 911s are very good from what I’ve read. In fact, Car&Driver magazine recently tested 2 different cars that were available with electric or hydraulic assistance, depending on engine chosen, and folks often chose the electrical assisted steering. (Wish I could find the issue and/or remember the cars used.
When I was younger I drove a lot of different cars and have owned nearly 3 dozen in 50 years of driving. In that time I never got to drive any of the cars with really good hydraulic assisted systems, but have driven many really bad ones. Chrysler products of the 60s and 70s were pretty bad with Fords and Mercurys of the same period being just a tiny bit better. About as much feeling to them as the dimmer switch to a lighting fixture. I can’t decide if the steering on my Crown Victoria is good or merely passable, as the last car of the same vintage I drove was a Pontiac G6.
I have had mixed experiences with manual steering, too. My Audi Fox was quick and reasonably light for a FWD car, while the steering in my 914 was very relaxing. One of the worst I remember is my 280Z, as the car felt like it had a very large turning circle and like it had a lot of weight on the front wheels.
So true. I still think the best steering control and handling I’ve found was from the 86 Olds Calais I owned. Even my Mother said it was the first car she’d driven that she actually felt she had under control. [ I had mistakenly posted that about her 02 Focus, but it was the Olds. ]
The others have sort of had steering that was there because one had to have something !
Granny had a yellow 70 Maverick Grabber w/o power steering. Took a lot of muscle, but she was a tough old bird. The 63 Valiant I have is unboosted and over the years I’ve gotten accustomed to it to the point it’s a non issue.
There was lots of panic apparently when the ignition switch shut off on the GM Delta compacts. So many out there didn’t recognize what non power steering even feels like they thought the things couldn’t be steered.
It would be interesting to drive a Volvo like this. Probably just as truck like as the Valiant I suspect.
Do ya remember anything else about the 70 Maverick? Just wanting to know.
I agree, EPS has much less feel, but for hybrids it’s indispensable since otherwise, the engine would have to run almost continuously. This is one of the trade-offs of that technology.
Of course it would be simplest to have unboosted steering, but not many drivers today would put up with that on FWD cars weighing around 1½ US tons.
Per an article in the November 1986 issue of Automobile Magazine, it was Saab.
http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/bb/9000/index.html?bID=86364
The advantage of electric power steering is that it’s relatively failsafe. If it conks out, the dead motor creates no or minimal drag on the steering system, so it’s like driving a car without PS at all rather than fighting a non-functioning hydraulic pump.
Don’t worry honey, the steering will lighten up around 525,000 miles, the dealer said so.
It is amazing the trunk space these and other cars like them had. A 70 Cortina also had 23 cubic ft. That’s the size of the trunk on my 76 Grand Marquis! Part of the problem of course stemmed from the fact domestic manufacturers for years insisted on not hiding the spare tire over to the side or under the floor. Except on Pinto’s and the like. And we didn’t use mini spares for years. Even in my 74 Impala the spare is right in the middle and takes up a lot of real estate. In that respect the LTD’s and Marquis’s were better because their spare was up on a shelf.
I purchased an ’09 Crown Victoria a few months ago. My feeling is that the spare “on it’s shelf” is of mixed benefit. If it were under the floor and I got a flat I might have to unload all the contents of the trunk, and I’ve seen a few folks that have had to do that. However, having to reach back into the trunk and pull the heavy spare out and replace it with a nearly as heavy flat tire/wheel is not something I would want to do at my age. BTW, my car had no spare when I bought it so I am replacing the compact spare (if it had one?) with a standard wheel/tire.
But having a flat doesn’t happen often, I think the last one I had was nearly 10 years ago on my 94 Ranger. Nothing like having to get under a truck to remove and replace a space. “Luckily” I was parked outside my apartment in a relatively clean, paved parking lot when I saw the flat.
Yeah, I haven’t had a flat or a blowout in years. But I still want a spare. I’ve been thinking about getting a mini spare and making some kind of bracket so I could stow it under the fuel tank on my Mavericks. That would open up a lot of space.
My wife had a blowout with our 2004 Sienna, & the AAA guy couldn’t find the spare at 1st, which is on the underside like your Ranger, but about in the middle.
The aggressive Volvo driver described in the article supports my assumption today that people drive more recklessly and/or willingly distract themselves because they know their “safe car” will save them. I can’t read an online new car review today without witnessing several comments patting each other on the backs waxing poetic about how we progressed into a golden age of auto safety, but then I turn on a TV and and automakers are selling the same cars bragging about the onboard WiFi connectivity!
That Volvo still looks good. Purpose built to fight planned obsolescence.
Such beauty in the simplicity. Ironic I disliked them when they were new. Hard to believe they were considered some sort of “upscale” marque when viewed in context of the cars I liked at the time. Once again the old ads are proven correct.
I loved their ads of the period. There was one for the “Amazon” that I kept in a scrapbook, sort of a tale of two cars. The big flashy domestic went on all the glamour trips while the Volvo stayed at home. But years later, it’s flashy garagemate was driven less while the Volvo was driven more, until the domestic was traded in. Or something like that.
It warped me. Such wisdom in an ad. The new and flashy outlasted by the prudent and competent. And it never went out of style, because it was never in style.
Volvo’s (and to be fair, other makes also) fuel injection worked not-so-well with the detergent-deprived gasoline in most of the gas stations of the 1970’s & early 1980’s.
My ’75 164 Volvo either ran great…or panted & growled like a dog when the injectors got stopped up.
This first 142E … or perhaps a few years later with the short shifter and a round speedo … was arguably Volvo’s high point. While later Turbo 240’s and 740’s and then various FWD Volvos had a pretty good balance of practicality and performance, they had become too complex. And the 240’s had some very poor quality trim and plastics, both by design and in manufacturing. If I ever get an automotive “toy” this would be near the top of my list. Though dual Weber DCOE’s might replace the FI.
The performance seems really good for a 4 cylinder automatic sedan, but then I noticed it was a 1971, from when there were very lax emissions regulations and no heavy bumpers.
It weighed about the same as a Maverick With 200/ auto and was a second faster thru the quarter. So yeah, that was great performance from a small four with auto back then.
In fact, it was real close to Maverick size as well. Maverick wheelbase: 103.3, Maverick length: 179.3, Maverick width: 70, Maverick height :53.5. Except for the height, it’s almost a spittin image of a Maverick in outside physical dimensions but with much better space utilization.
All cars had 3 point seat belts in the US in 1971, but this Volvo had the inertia belts all cars came with for the front seats in 1974. Now it seems second nature to slowly pull them out so they don’t lock up while unreeling, but in 1971 a person would naturally pull it out quickly and wonder why it locked up,
My favorite look for a Volvo, as it looks like my 1972 142S that I owned for a brief period in 1980. Lovely sky blue and that simple, squared-off design. Huge trunk and great visibility. And yes, the seats were excellent. I don’t recall the steering being heavy; I wonder if they gave in and offers power steering for the ’72’s. The photo is one I found online, but is the same model and color as mine, which was totalled by a red-light runner intersection crash. The front end was squashed back to the windshield, which didn’t even have a crack in it. Those sear belts worked like a charm. The pictured car I how I would have mine kitted out today, if I still had it, with those lovely Minilite wheels.
What is with the off-center logo, and why did some (but not all) of the later 240s have it?
My blue 142E with BW35 automatic gearbox was build in februari 1971. Could this be ‘the one’ or one of the two cars that where avalable with automatic in april 1971?