General Comments:
I already own a V70, but I have 2 jobs and only really need a large estate car at weekends, so I decided to buy the 940 for weekends, and get a small diesel car for my midweek job, which takes me all over the country.
In comparison to the V70, the 940 is very plasticky inside, nowhere near as a nice place to be as the V70, but having said that, it is an older design and that's my only niggle on the subject of comfort; the seats are very supportive and ideal for long journeys, and all the controls are incredibly light, which surprised me in a car that's often referred to as a tank.
Mine is the 2.3 light pressure turbo version; not a racing car by any stretch of the imagination, but it pulls like a train no matter how much weight is in the back, or how steep the hill is. It makes you quite lazy with the gears; just leave it in 4th and it goes everywhere; it's like an auto.
Don't expect good fuel economy if you choose one of these; no matter how people try to gloss over it to defend their cars, they are very thirsty, but who cares (sorry to the environmentalists for that).
The trade off is the best workhorse ever made; better than the V70 as it's bigger in the back.
This one has a full and comprehensive service history, and feels like it's done 20,000 miles, not over 100,000. It's built to last for decades.
28th Apr 2010, 04:02
I like the review. It's pretty accurate. The only thing is the reference to fuel efficiency. On short journeys they can be very thirsty. Very high mileage ones that haven't been properly maintained can be disastrously thirsty.
A well maintained 940, with no CEL light glowing (Lambda Light) can return as well as a petrol 850/V70 quite easily. Drive them within their capacities and I never found them to be any more guzzling than equivalent 2.0 to 2.5-litre engined cars.