1989 Volvo 740 GLE 2.3i from UK and Ireland
Fast, comfortable, elegant, safe classic
This is my second 740 2.3 GLE. It has been very reliable. Only needing a new alternator regulator, which cost only £10.
A few dashboard lights have recently gone out, such as the bulb near the petrol gauge, and the heated rear window switch bulb. Otherwise it's been perfect, and starts first time every time.
The roof headlining is sagging in a few places. I might bother to fix it one day.
I love this car. The seats are full heated leather, very comfortable and supportive. It is fast enough with a 2.3 engine, not quite as quick as modern cars, but it pulls very well.
Fuel economy isn't great, about 20-25 UK mpg in town, and 30-35mpg on the motorway.
The car sailed through its last MOT test with no faults.
I hope to keep this car for a few years more.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 4th December, 2007
21st Apr 2008, 15:03
" Elegant "...it is not elegent... it is awful.
Design level same as a 6 year old kid drawing a container....
7th May 2015, 07:52
And enough of this 'safe' nonsense. Any modern car would make mincemeat of a 740 in a frontal crash.
7th May 2015, 22:36
These old Volvos are not as safe as modern cars, but they will still put up a fight. If I had to drive a 1987 car, I would want it to be a Volvo for safety still over anything from Ford, etc where safety wasn't even a design factor! Plus, I do think the design is elegant. Boxy, true, but it has identity. Anyway, look at anything built in America in the 80s and they almost make the Volvo look sporty. People in the UK and Europe have to remember what a big market the USA was for a small company like Volvo back then!
8th May 2015, 21:49
That "safe" isn't nonsense. Yes, you've seen the Volvo 940 vs. Renault Modus 5th Gear crash test. Older vs. modern. But this is a review of a 1989 car - not how great they are against a 2011 Corolla. If today was 1989, the only car equally safe to be driving in an accident would be a Mercedes designed for offset frontal crashes. For whatever reason, the owner isn't driving a very contemporary car. I'm sure they'd rather be driving an older car which was safer in real terms than other cars of the same age (or used car price range). Crash a 1989 Volvo against a 1989 Toyota Camry or a Taurus, or even a 1992 Civic, what are the chances you'd be better off in the latter cars?