240 Question

[Myron Samila]

I don't know. Ask Ford how many people buy Mustangs.

Today's mustang isn't based on old technology, first off, '99 up use IRS, the 240 never
did. The only thing that has remained over all these years is the name at "similar" RWD
layout.

If Volvo made a 240 still, it would be FWD, who wants a live axle vs IRS? Even my old
Alfas had DeDion IRS.

Go buy a 1993 240 and don't bother us anymore.

 

[Joseph Oberlander]

I know that this is straying off topic, but I've got to say
that if you think a C230K isn't a true Merc, I guess that
you haven't seen the MB series vans. Built by wholly owned
DaimlerChrysler company Ssanyong in South Korea...

Well... I wasn't even going to mention those bastard children.

 

[Joseph Oberlander]

Side impact protection is required on all USA spec vehicles. The 240
didn't have it and weren't practical to upgrade. All Volvos made after
1993 met the USA 1997 side-impact standards

Side curtain airbags are not required. However they are standard on all
of today's Volvos.

Volvo 240s didn't have air bags or ABS at all. All Volvos made after
1993 had air bags and ABS.

Sorry. My 1990 240 had airbags and abs. It also would have been
easy to retrofit the doors as there was plenty of open space inside
for bars and anything else you want to stiffen them(in reality,
they hold up ten times better than the doors on a Dodge Neon).

 

[PButler111]

Subject: Re: 240 Question

From: "Myron Samila" [email protected]
Date: 4/18/2004 4:57 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>

Your answers to my opinion make it seem like you're an idiot.

Yes, I read the original post, I make a valid and qualified opinion.

Wanna see what 240 fully loaded wagons go for here? 140,000 kms (87k miles)
typically
$2500-$4500 certified, emissions tested, and that is Canadian funds, so make
that MUCH
cheaper in USD. What they list for and sell for are two different things.

Figuring that you can buy a used Volvo 850 (1993-95) for under $8000 Canadian
with low
kms. 1998 V70s loaded go for approx $14,500 Cnd.

The very question that you asked in your original post is the most stupid
thing I've ever
heard. Why don't they still make the VW Bug the way they used to (rear
engine)?
considering they sold millions, and the last one made/sold was only a few
years back.
duh...

"Duh" indeed. You found one 240 with 140,000 miles on it, and from that you
presume that you know the going rate of every 240 in Canada. "Duh." Then you
go on to posit that no one would choose a 240 if they could get a different,
new kind of Volvo for only twice the price. It's a little like saying, why pay
a million dollars for a Da Vinci drawing when, for only two million dollars,
you can get something drawn last week? "Duh." Then you use for an example of
why Volvo wouldn't bring back a new version of the 240, Volkswagen, which *did*
bring back a new version of an older model of their cars. "Duh" all around,
dear.

 

[PButler111]

Subject: Re: 240 Question

From: "Myron Samila" [email protected]
Date: 4/18/2004 5:04 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>





Today's mustang isn't based on old technology, first off, '99 up use IRS, the
240 never
did. The only thing that has remained over all these years is the name at
"similar" RWD
layout.

If Volvo made a 240 still, it would be FWD, who wants a live axle vs IRS?
Even my old
Alfas had DeDion IRS.

Go buy a 1993 240 and don't bother us anymore.

"Us"? Who do you think you're speaking for? You and the voices in your head?
If you're not a fan of 240s, why are you even involved in this thread?

 

[Alex Zepeda]

I don't think side impact air bags are standard on most new cars, so I can't
see why not having them would prevent a car from being made.

It's not just the side airbags. Volvo never built a 200 series car with
SIPS.

The 240 would be a bad choice to bring back because:

- It gets lousy gas mileage (can you name another 115hp car that uses that
much fuel? An 850 *turbo* will get similar gas mileage)
- It doesn't meet current emissions standards (no OBDII/EOBD)
- It doesn't meet current safety standards (no dual airbags, no SIPS, any
sort of pedestrian safety standards)
- Lousy electrical system (glass fuses suck
for the 13 or so fuses in a modern 240, a modern 850 has about 2-3x that,
plus the 240 has relays everywhere).
- Poor soundproofing
- It's expensive to build.

I'd say bring back the 95-98 960 and/or late model 760, but offer it with
the turbo 4, NA 5, and turbo six white block motors.. and ditch the
sliding piston front calipers. The late model 960 has all the amenities of
a modern car (nice rear suspension, nicer soundproofing, airbags, better
side impact protection, better HVAC, etc). The electrical system is
a lot more sane (blade type fuses, relay block, etc).

 

[Alex Zepeda]

Sorry. My 1990 240 had airbags and abs. It also would have been
easy to retrofit the doors as there was plenty of open space inside
for bars and anything else you want to stiffen them(in reality,
they hold up ten times better than the doors on a Dodge Neon).

Sorry. SIPS is not about building stronger doors. There were
reinforcements to the B pillar and the floor pan that could not have been
retrofitted to a 240.

ABS was standard on all Volvos after 92, and I think all 240s after 90 had
driver's side airbags.

 

[Rob Guenther]

Don't know too much about the mustang, but I have heard the frame is dating
25 years old... But they've updated it and changed engines, suspensions and
whatnot... The 40 series Volvo's are the 240 of today I suppose.

I believe the 850 was suppose to replace the 240/740, they seem to be good
cars too, especially the 96's.

Go for the gusto and get a 1998 V90/S90... They were the last of the tankish
Volvo's, and nice as anything inside.

 

[Alex Zepeda]

Who gives a shit?

Could you possibly try to be more obnoxious?

If you're going to ask someone's opinion, don't attack them for giving it
to you.

- alex

 

[Alex Zepeda]

They wanted more profits. It backfired on them, as people could
no longer buy a $20K Volvo that was a tank. What they got was a
halfway Volvo, much like how the Mercedes C230K isn't a true
Mercedes.

Right. But a $20,000 car back in the 80s would not be a $20,000 car now.
Try $40,000 or $50,0000.

 

[Rob Guenther]

Except the new VW only looks similar to the old one... Its a Volkswagen Golf
with a different body and interior... The engine is a 2.0L FWD unit with
more power then the original could dream about... and the construction
techniques are modern VW - make it look increbily solid and nice, cheap out
on the stuff they don't see, sell it for a price premium, and hope they love
it (don't get me wrong I love VW's I drive one, but this is what they do)...
it's not built with the same care that the original, or a car like the 240
was built with.

 

[PButler111]

Subject: Re: 240 Question

From: Alex Zepeda [email protected]
Date: 4/18/2004 6:02 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>



It's not just the side airbags. Volvo never built a 200 series car with
SIPS.

The 240 would be a bad choice to bring back because:

- It gets lousy gas mileage (can you name another 115hp car that uses that
much fuel? An 850 *turbo* will get similar gas mileage)
- It doesn't meet current emissions standards (no OBDII/EOBD)
- It doesn't meet current safety standards (no dual airbags, no SIPS, any
sort of pedestrian safety standards)
- Lousy electrical system (glass fuses suck
for the 13 or so fuses in a modern 240, a modern 850 has about 2-3x that,
plus the 240 has relays everywhere).
- Poor soundproofing
- It's expensive to build.

And you're saying that none of these issues could be addressed in a new 240?

By the way, how good do you think the mileage is in those ginormous SUVs
currently lumbering like dinosaurs all over the country's freeways?

 

[PButler111]

Subject: Re: 240 Question

From: Alex Zepeda [email protected]
Date: 4/18/2004 6:05 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>



Could you possibly try to be more obnoxious?

If you're going to ask someone's opinion, don't attack them for giving it
to you.

- alex

I'll be obnoxious as I like if the opinion they offer has nothing whatever to
do with the question asked.

 

[PButler111]

Subject: Re: 240 Question

From: "Rob Guenther" [email protected]
Date: 4/18/2004 6:05 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>

Don't know too much about the mustang, but I have heard the frame is dating
25 years old... But they've updated it and changed engines, suspensions and
whatnot... The 40 series Volvo's are the 240 of today I suppose.

I believe the 850 was suppose to replace the 240/740, they seem to be good
cars too, especially the 96's.

Go for the gusto and get a 1998 V90/S90... They were the last of the tankish
Volvo's, and nice as anything inside.

Sorry, I thought I made it clear that I was a 240 fan.

 

[PButler111]

Subject: Re: 240 Question

From: "Rob Guenther" [email protected]
Date: 4/18/2004 6:11 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>

Except the new VW only looks similar to the old one... Its a Volkswagen Golf
with a different body and interior... The engine is a 2.0L FWD unit with
more power then the original could dream about... and the construction
techniques are modern VW - make it look increbily solid and nice, cheap out
on the stuff they don't see, sell it for a price premium, and hope they love
it (don't get me wrong I love VW's I drive one, but this is what they do)...
it's not built with the same care that the original, or a car like the 240
was built with.

Ipso facto, the same would have to be true of a new 240?

 

[Myron Samila]

Ipso facto, the same would have to be true of a new 240?

and dude, I said 140,000kms, not miles, you should read MY post a little bit better.


Sure, and it would have been a FWD too.

 

[Timothy J. Lee]

If 240s are so popular (and I'm certainly one of their biggest fans), then why
don't they make them anymore? You'd think with the consistently high demand
for these cars, even though the newest ones are 11 years old, Volvo would take
the hint.

People like them now because they are inexpensive, durable, and (for
wagons) very good work wagons. A new one would not fulfill the
"inexpensive" part of the equation -- few would be willing to pay new
prices (1993 new price was around $19000, which was considerably more
than typical cars like Accords, Camrys, etc.) for a 1970s design.

 

[Myron Samila]

And you're saying that none of these issues could be addressed in a new 240?

By the way, how good do you think the mileage is in those ginormous SUVs
currently lumbering like dinosaurs all over the country's freeways?

SUVs are the hottest thing selling, that is why Volvo now makes one.

You know why Volvo stopped making this car? Cuz it was obsolete in the market, THE MARKET
dictates what manufacturers will eventually make.


Say, you know what car company still makes a body style that everyone was DICTATED to love
and drive? The Russian built Lada 1600. It started life as a Fiat 124, and continued on
as a Lada, dah Comrad!

 

[Marshall Earp]

They don't meet current safety standards. There was no way to
incorporate side impact protection in them.
They were not designed for
air bags. The safety standards of current models are far superior.

That makes no sense, today's safety standards are way lower then they used
to be. You run a '75 LTD into a '95 Metro guess who dies? The cafe standards
imposed by the government have made today's cars smaller, lighter and much,
much more dangerous.

 

[Marshall Earp]

It's not just the side airbags. Volvo never built a 200 series car with
SIPS.

The 240 would be a bad choice to bring back because:

- It gets lousy gas mileage

My 245 is the best milage car I have.


(can you name another 115hp car that uses that

much fuel? An 850 *turbo* will get similar gas mileage)
- It doesn't meet current emissions standards (no OBDII/EOBD)

Thank GOD!!!

- It doesn't meet current safety standards (no dual airbags, no SIPS, any
sort of pedestrian safety standards)

Safer than a Sprint.

- Lousy electrical system (glass fuses suck
for the 13 or so fuses in a modern 240, a modern 850 has about 2-3x that,
plus the 240 has relays everywhere).

I'll give you that, but all Volvo's electrical systems have sucked, do suck,
and will suck.

- Poor soundproofing

Never noticed that.

- It's expensive to build.

Anything good is.