1985 Volvo 240 GL 2.3 auto from UK and Ireland
Small amount of welding needed under back seat for MOT.
Headlights replaced at £10 for the pair from a scrapyard.
A comfortable and reliable car. Now rather old-fashioned, and handling not the best, although steering is light. Generally well made and solid. Acceleration good around town, but blunted by square shape on the motorway. Worst aspect of the car is fuel economy - I average 23mpg, but this is offset by reliability.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 24th January, 1999
16th Mar 2001, 07:47
Your fuel economy at 23mpg is awful - something must be wrong.
People always accuse the 240 of drinking petrol, but in my experience the normal is 27mpg for a carb model, 30mpg for injection. Driven carefully on a long run I have got 30 and 35 respectively.
Very careful tuning is the key.
25th Jul 2001, 05:54
Nah. Ignore the previous comment. My 2.3 estate returns about the same as yours about town. if I strip naked, lay horizontal, smear myself in vaseline, clench buttocks and drive like a nun I can coax this up to the low 30's on a long run... provided I don't have to stop anywhere!
15th Sep 2001, 03:55
Did you take into account that a US gallon is about 20% smaller than an imperial gallon? That makes 23 mpUSg around 27.5 mpImpg.
My 240GL gives 27 mp (imperial) g, but it needs its valve clearances adjusting so there may be even more mpg to come! I'm told these engines are particularly sensitive to valve clearance adjustment.
26th Nov 2001, 21:13
I had a V Reg 240 GL Saloon which had a 2 litre petrol engine and a 3-speed Automatic transmission.
It would only return 22mpg.
It didn't matter if you drove it hard, soft or anywhere in between, you still got 22mpg.
It was very reliable and solid, but parts prices made it unsustainable.
A new radiator cost over £300 and few non-genuine Volvo spares were available.