I now drive a 1991 940 GL which I use for my daily 75 miles highway commute. It's pleasant and does its job well but at times I wish it were less
 noisy and generally more comfortable.

 Would an 850 be any better in these respects? And if so should I go for a turbo or not?

 Thanks for sharing your experiences!

 Rob
 --
 Rob A, 91 940 GL, 169K km (105K Mi)
                                        

 I answered a question like this a few weeks ago. Here is a summary of my personal opinion:

 If you like the bigger car or RWD, I'd recommend a late model 960, 1996 or later; in 98 they became S/V 90. It has all the amenities of the
 850's (climate control, sound insulation, CD player, winter package, instrument console, ABS, traction control, power seats, etc) plus the
 superior handling of RWD and larger capacity. It has the inline 6 cyl engine, same engine as in the newer S80. No turbo is available in the later
 models, but the NA inline 6 has got plenty of pop. It's not the older V6 engine that plagued Volvo's earlier 960's. Volvo ended production of this
 car after 98.

 That said, 850 is a nice platform. A bit smaller, and with traction control it's better in slick conditions than you'd expect in FWD, but expect
 torque steer and FWD squirreliness. You can get this model with a low pressure or high pressure turbo. In 98, they were restyled, and renamed
 S/V/C 70 (for Sedan, Vagon or Coupe). Some new features and engineering were incorporated but it's essentially the same car as the 850.
 Engine is an inline 5 cylinder. Most reviewers on this board recommend a turbo as the NA base engine is a little sluggish...and it's noisier.

 Older 940's won't have the features of the updated 960's but you can get it with a turbo. Not as powerful or as quiet as the 850, so I'd
 recommend the 850 over the 940.

 When we replace our 940 this spring, we'll look for a 97 or 98 960/V90 with the winter package.
 --
 David M (98 S70 T5SE misc mods, mostly lighting) (92 940 GLE 160K)
                                      

 David already has a good comparation and opinion.
 One minor thing I remember at the time I bought my 850, the length of 940 is longer than 850, but the volumn (useful length/width) is higher than
 the 940. I cannot recall the 940 is the same length as the 960 or not.
 That mean on my own opinion, I pay same $ (roughly) for a bigger volumn of 850. And for me, FWD is a must in Canadian winter. PChiu
                                        Re: 850 or 940 - which is the better car?[850]   [post reply]
                                   Bryan Goldberg -- Thursday, 13 December 2001, at 2:44 p.m.

 Hi David,

 I heard from my dealer that S is for Sedan, C is for coupe and V is for "variant."

 Yannis, it that true?

 Bryan
 --
 '98 S70 GLT w/Bilsteins, IPD strut brace, K&N filter
                                        

 No matter what anyone tells you (probably that V is for versatility), V is for 'vagn,' the Swedish word for wagon, or more precisely, vehicle. All
 other explanations of 'V' come under the category of 'marketing, uh, male bovine feces.'

 The V simply doesn't fit into the English scheme of things the way 'S' and 'C' do. (In England, 'S' is for 'saloon,' their term for a sedan; they call a
 wagon and 'estate.')
 --
 David M (98 S70 T5SE misc mods, mostly lighting) (92 940 GLE 160K)
                                      

 Though FWD has some getting-going advantages on slick surfaces, I prefer the RWD because you can decelarate and stop with stability,
 without the intervention of ABS, TRACS and EBD. Just as importantly you intuitively control a skid. (That said, the new systems in FWD give
 back some of that control.)

 The laws are simple physics. In a RWD vehicle, when you take your foot off the gas, the rear wheels decelerate first, keeping the rear end from
 swinging out past the nose. This is why semi-trailers have special systems for applying the brakes to the trailer first, otherwise they'd jackknife.
 And in my case, I'm worried more about stopping in the snow than going. (On the other hand, when you step on the gas in RWD on a slick
 surface, the back end wants to swing out. Bad if you're in a hurry, great if you want to spin donuts or do racing-style drift turns.)

 FWD's major liabilities in winter come with torque steer, which can induce a condition called fish-nosing. This has resulted in many a black-ice
 spin because once an FWD is going sideways, it's almost impossible to recover. FWD's can also tunnel, or snow-plow, in medium deep
 greasy snow - a condition in which the car keeps going straight even though your wheels are turned.

 So each car has it's winter advantages (and AWD has the advantages of both).

 Today, ABS, TRACS and EBD make the FWD car more stable than any of the FWD's I've owned previously in these conditions. A recent tour
 on roads with black ice and a skim of snow proved much, much better than expected this past weekend. But the real test will be this winter, my
 first with the S70 on New Hampshire's sleety-slushy-snowy-blowy coastal highway. Check with me in March. I may agree with you by then.
 --
 David M (98 S70 T5SE misc mods, mostly lighting) (92 940 GLE 160K)
                                      

 "The laws are simple physics."

 You'd be surprised how complex the laws of physics are.

 Years ago, in one of my classes in dynamics (mechanical engineering), my teacher did a little demonstration. He took two wooden, toy cars
 and let them free-fall down an inclined plane. They both tracked straight and true. Then, using pins, he locked the front wheels from rotating and
 repeated the experiment. He did the same, locking the rear wheels. He repeated the experiment several more times locking individual wheels.

 Before he conducted the experiment, he took a poll of the class to determine which configuration would yield the most stable results, and which
 would yield the least stable results. Of course, we all said that if you locked the front wheels, the cars would be the most unstable.

 After the experiment was finshed, we had to model the situation using math, and I have long since lost the knowledge to explain, using the
 principles of physics, why the experiment resulted the way it did.

 Would anyone care to hazard a guess as to which configuration is the most, or least stable?
                                      

 I saw this in engrg. school as well. I think it is a favorite of physics profs. Locked rear wheels were the most unstable in that the tendency of the
 model was for the rear to swing around to the front. Rule of thumb is that the wheels that lose traction want to lead the car. Explanation was that
 locked or accelerating wheels exceed the frictional traction of the tires on the road easier than freely rotating wheels. Early write-ups of the
 advantages of front wheel drive in slippery conditions often attributed this to the vehicle being pulled, rather than pushed, by the wheels. In fact,
 it had more to do with which wheels would lose traction first.
                                      

 You're right that the physics aren't that simple (but they're simpler than astrophysics). In any event, your example is irrelevant because the rear
 wheels on RWD vehicles would never lock up by themselves (not even in the truck example as the trailing brake system is designed to apply a
 small slowing force. I imagine the engineers who design these systems are aware of the experiment you've mentioned). Taking your foot off the
 gas in RWD is similar, it applies a small slowing force from the rear.

 Lose traction, FWD or RWD, and all bets are off...though I'd rather be in RWD for it's ability to steer out of a skid.

 When an FWD vehicle is a serious contender on a race course or as a true performance vehicle, I'll be more open to the idea of FWD as a
 player. I've driven both in winter (though not my current S70 with the extra gismos on it), and for unaided slowing and stopping my experience
 has been RWD is better than FWD. And trying to steer out of a skid in FWD is extremely difficult as the skip barber people will tell you.

 FWD was created primarily (I'm not saying exclusively) to reduce weight and thus improve fuel efficiency by permitting transverse mounting,
 thus cab-forward design.

 --
 David M (98 S70 T5SE) (92 940 GLE)