Ideally, the new 144/142 would have come with the larger two liter engine from the get-go, given that it was a bigger and heavier car than the 122/Amazon, in which the 1.8 L gave quite adequate performance; even rather lively. For 1969, it got a bigger engine; a substantially revised version of the venerable pushrod four, with a new block and other changes. Maximum power was up only slightly, to 118 (gross) hp, from 115, but torque got a bigger bump, and that’s what Americans prized.
It was a bit of a challenge to pin down just why Volvo was steadily improving its sales at the expense of cars like the Peugeot; within a few years, the 140/240 series would break out to be a genuine hit. It really had no outstanding features, save perhaps its seats, but owners came to appreciate its faithfulness in all kinds of conditions and its tall boxy body (easy to get in and out), which increasingly put it at odds with American trends. That was probably the single biggest factor: it was an anti-Detroit mobile, without the Beetle’s more massive shortcoming.
In addition to the extra torque, there were a number of small improvements that made daily life with the 142S easier: it was quieter, the new cloth upholstery was more comfortable, and an improved automatic was on tap for those that wanted that. All in all, that and its superb 4-wheel disc brakes made the Volvo just than more compelling of an alternative to the ever-larger American cars.
There are revisionists who will tell you that SU carburetors were great, so I find it pretty telling that Henry Manney said buyers would celebrate the replacement of “zombie SU carburetors” with ones made by Zenith Stromberg.
This Volvo sold for the equivalent of $27,298 of todays depreciated dollars. I’m not sure you can buy a new car of any description for that amount today, let alone a Volvo that isn’t just a front for Geely.
There are also revisionists who will tell you that Zenith Strombergs were materially better than SUs, so me, I find it pretty telling that Henry Manney said “the new carburetors seemed to load up after stopping to park, making it hard to get the engine started again”.
C’mon. This is just Holley versus Carter with an other-than-American accent.
I think this article is the closest I’ve coming to seeing a favorable comment about a Zenith Stromberg carburetor, even if it was just saying that previous SU owners would be glad that they were getting ZS carburetors instead of SUs. I was warned off of Triumph sports car ownership by someone who raced them because of the ZS carburetors they came with. Are you suggesting that Manney was a Stromberg loyalist from his days in England; a man who’d rather push a car with clogged Strombergs than push a car with SUs that have stuck pistons?
I don’t know what prompted Manney to go Yay, ZSs instead of SUs except perhaps a need to fill column-inches; a deadline, and a list of changes to the new Volvo. They were conceptually the same, differing in details of design and construction. I am medium-passingly familiar with both, and given the choice in equal condition I would probably prefer SUs, but more practically I’d prefer a well-running set to a poor-running set of either. They were both carburetors with the inherent problems and limitations of that technology.
You think the ZSs were bad here? Volvo Penta used them on marine engines. What could possibly go wrong there…
I don’t know; educate me: what was there about the ZS carburetor that made it especially bad or notably worse than another kind of carburetor in marine service? Was it something intrinsic to the ZS carb’s design, or was it an inadequate job of –
marinating– marinising the carbs?MSRP of a 2022 Chevy Malibu including standard AC, AT, and radio is $23,400.
MSRP of a new Camry with standard AT, AC, and radio starts at $25,845.
It’s always fun to read contemporary reviews of cars that you’ve actually owned (or in this case, kind of close to having owned)…not to mention simply reading the old-style auto magazine prose of someone like Manney.
What does that even mean?? 🙂
I owned a 1968 144 with the 1.8 litre engine that was replaced in 1969 with the 2 litre engine that is subject of this article. And now I own a 1976 with the 2.1 litre fuel injected version of the engine in the article. What I can say is that the biggest problem with the 1968 was that it was quite gutless and was missing the grunt that this R&T review praised. And at the same time, my 1976 improves yet again the 2 litre non-injected performance.
Where this is relevant in the current day is that I would have a hard time imagining trying to drive my old 68 144 in modern traffic, whereas the 76 does ok even at highway speeds. All of that is due to the process of small-ish incremental improvements that Volvo made over about 40 years to what was in many ways largely the same car. That’s my takeaway from the R&T article, which captured that incremental improvement process about a 1/4 of the way through.
While the B21 in your 1976 was a ‘red block’ engine, it was also an early overhead cam version while this car would have had a pushrod engine.
“you can get in and out like a Christian human being” is an almost-cleverish way of saying you simply sit down or stand up, without having to twist and contort and do the shimmy-shimmy ko-ko-bop while god is watching.
(and “f.o.t.b” means “fresh off the boat”; it’s a not-very-nice term for immigrants, used glibly here)
f.o.t.b. in this instance means folded-over tin box. It was referenced in the previous sentence. Good grief.
Okeh, sure, but the term as I defined it was in wide enough use at the time that “folded-over tin box” strikes me as a nudge-and-wink euphemism for the other.
Yeah. Which is really the issue I take with so much of the prose of that time. Know what I mean? Know what I mean?
Then again, I suppose the same will be said by people about our current language (LOL!) 40 years beyond 2022.
Oh, this is mild. Could be Tom McCahill instead, whose writing style has not aged well.
Yeah, “corners flatter than the chest of an old maid bookkeeper” is one example of a McCahillism that sticks out in my mind.
I don’t think it was only Manney, in various R&T articles of the time, who when describing ride quality, referred to harsh bumps in the road as “thank you ma’am’s”. But I think the “fotb” usage is not a veiled reference to ‘fresh off the boat”. FOB (Fresh off the Boat) and POE (Point of Entry) were accepted abbreviations used to describe pricing or other aspects of logistics.
Er…no, in shipping and logistics, “FOB” means “Free On Board”—whatever it is you’re shipping will be the vendor’s responsibility up to the FOB point (“FOB origin” or “FOB shipping point” means the vendor is responsible for the goods until they leave the vendor’s possession; “FOB destination” means the vendor remains responsible for the goods until they arrive where they’re shipped, etc). Once the goods move beyond the agreed FOB point, they are the responsibility of the buyer.
In 1969 I went with my parents to the Volvo factory in Gothenburg to pick up a white 144 with red cloth interior. We drove around Scandinavia for a month then returned to the factory, where our car was loaded on a freighter to be shipped to the U.S.
A few years later I took my drivers license exam with that car. The examiner encouraged me to put my right arm over the seat so I could turn around while reversing, which would have been good advice if I was driving an American car with a bench seat and no headrests. I did as I was told and passed the test.
The bucket seats were comfortable but I remember struggling with the non-power steering to parallel park in winter while wearing a heavy cloth coat that clung to the upholstery.
An automatic transmission sapped most of the engine’s power. There was a manual choke, and a ribbon speedometer. I have not driven a car with better visibility since.
In my memory the car was a tank; I’m surprised to see the test car’s 2,500 pound curb weight.
This is a terrific car and one of our family friends loved all Volvos. So, we got a chance to ride around in them every Sunday. Volvos were popular with many immigrants in our neighborhood. It seems that these Volvos were everywhere.
They cost more than an American compact car – and worth every dime. The only drawback was the lack of a/c. In Chicago, a/c is a must and the Volvos either had an iffy a/c unit, or none at all. With the black vinyl seats – they were pretty tough to ride around in during summer.
After growing up in Volvo’s, and not straying far from the nest for my first car, a Volvo 122S, I really wanted to like the 140’s. The packaging was fantastic, for an rwd sedan (or wagon) and as an impressionable 12 year old, I had read this test and will to my dying days remember Manney’s anecdote about the airline pilot neighbor and the 7 liter Brakeless Wonder. Then I bought a 142 from a friend in 1977, an early B20 example with the long shifter and ribbon speedo just like the test car. For some reason it just didn’t click with me, and I gave it back to him in just a few days. Note that this was to replace, or supplement, my second car, my Vega GT … which says something, though probably more about me than about the car.
The Volvo had another outstanding feature besides its seats: crashworthiness.
I was impressed as a small kid, during an era of automotive style over substance, Volvo offered practical body styles, see through head restraints, and thoughtful touches like factory mudguards.
Mine was a 1970 4 speed stick in pearl gray that I bought new off the showroom floor. Got totaled nearly 10 years later, me practically unscathed. Needed to replace the clutch after about 9 years of city driving due to a leaking felt seal. Did the work myself, easy job. Put a set of Pirelli Cinturatos on it after the Firestone Deluxe Champions wore out. Huge difference. Could have saved a bundle if I had been willing to wait for a new Duster with a 4 speed. Very satisfied though.
A 1971 was my first car. I purchased it for about $200 In 1991, due to a bed had gasket. Replacing the head gasket wasn’t too difficult if I remember correctly. It was mustard yellow, four speed standard (i think) and manual steering. I remember that it was really hard to take off on a hill in that first gear without riding the clutch. Even my dad had issues with it on a hill, and he had been driving standard only cars for years.
I was driving it for about 9 months, when the motor blew – it actually threw a rod through the side of the block! Somehow, we fished out a piece of the cam and one lifter through that hole. I still have that lifter, and the four hubcaps from that car.
By the way, the rear Bumper from said Volvo was used to replace the front bumper on a 1967 International Scout. It looked just about perfect there as well.
I had a bit of seat time in a 142GT, which has to be a very close relative to a 142S. Dunno what year, ’72, ’73 or so. A college roommate, who was somewhat older than was, girlfriends car, and she was somewhat older than he was, gawd, she must have been an old lady, probably pushing if not over 30! Ahem, yes, I was a bit younger then. It was a new car at the time, probably less than 5K on it. Fuel injected IIRC. Seemed like I did a bit of chauffeur duty, which was ok, to me it was inclusive and gave me something to do, like drive a cool new car.
But the car, tell us about the CAR!!!
Oh, yeah. To my modest standards it might have been a RR. It was wow. Not a rocket ship, but power, good power, just push down on the right pedal and it goes. It was a new car, something I was most unaccustomed to. Back in ~73 or thereabouts, it was fast, quiet, smooth and unassuming. I’d been in a couple of recent/new cars before at my then young age and it was just wow. I’ve long been puzzled by the Volvo 140-240 popularity, but not so much if this one was representative.
These were very high compression and needed premium fuel. Mine would tend to run-on after I turned off the ignition. With the dual Zenith carbs on mine, I was always more than able to keep up with traffic even on the highways in Northern New Jersey where I would travel to the Kodak lab in Fairlawn weekly during football season. Bumper to bumper at 70 MPH back then. Always wore my 3 point belt. Felt safe even though I never liked that kind of traffic much.
That would be absolute, abject misery on a highway trip. The engine would be SCREAMING, I would expect the noise level to border on physical pain.
Yeah…no. Valiant, please.
More at home on streets, boulevards and parkways. Not “buzzy” at all on the highway though. Daily driver for about 10 years. Drove from NYC to Chicago on the interstate in total comfort passing lots of traffic along the way with the b20 engine.
Highway speed of, what, 60? Maybe 55? Engine screaming, fan howling, no thank you.