(Lack of) appeal of older Volvos (240)

I recently purchased my first Volvo, a 92 240 wagon. I love it, it's
clean inside and out, not much rust, higher than average mileage but
well maintained and in good operating condition. I was looking for a
roomy winter car and think I got that and a whole lot more. There are
so many qualities that go with a 240 Volvo wagon, that all of you know
(safety, solid engineering, ergonomic comfort, spacious cargo, durable
drivetrain, etc.). I have read some people say that they thought the
240 was possibly the best car that Volvo ever built.

Oddly enough, I also own a 1982 Mercedes-Benz 240, a diesel sedan. It
shares many of the qualities of the Volvo listed above (except cargo
space obviously). Both fine cars, that in good condition and with
proper care and maintenance, could potentially last another 10 years
(maybe more with the Benz, as I don't drive it in the winter).

Now the reality is that I didn't pay much for my Volvo, and I see many
others of that vintage selling for very low dollars locally. Mind you,
many of them are probably rusted through so are not worth much, but
some look like very nice specimen. So I am asking myself: if these
vehicles are so well built, so durable, possess all those qualities,
why aren't there more people seeking them out (thereby increasing used
prices by supply and demand)?

I have come across a few people who had bought solid old Volvos as
first car for their kids, only to have the kids say "I don't want to
drive in that ugly thing!", and the parent is forced to sell. So looks
are part of it, the 240 (especially) has outdated lines (some would
call that "classic"). Plus they are getting older, and a lot of people
won't touch a used car that's more than 3-4 years old. I have a
feeling that ignorance is probably mostly to blame for people shunning
older Volvos. I can't help thinking that maybe, like in other aspects
of our society, there is a kind of "dumming down" of the population
mainstream. People generally don't care what's under the hood of a car
anymore, and the vast majority never look under there. NO interest in
how the vehicle is designed, except that it have a good stereo and go
like the wind when they step on the gas. Longevity, cost of ownership
(most people go for expensive leases now!), seems secondary in most
people's mind to color, looks, sex appeal, whatever.

Oh well, I suppose this ignorance is a blessing for those of us who
favour older cars like Volvos, because it ensures plentiful supply of
cheap cars and parts. However, something nags at me, to try to explain
why someone would rather buy a 4 year old Dodge Neon or Chevy Cavalier
or Kia (or choose your favorite piece of cr*p car), rather than a
safer, better designed, and probably longer-lived older vehicle like a
Volvo or Mercedes... It's a mystery to me...

 

Must be where you live. In northern California a decent 240 is very
difficult to find and much sought after.

Howard.

 

How much can you get for a used kid? Maybe they could trade it for
another Volvo!
And that's a big part of why they can be had for reasonable prices. I
would rather have a 20 year old Volvo than a five year old Ford
Taurus. Like cardboard interiors? Get a GM product!

Do you ride a motorcycle? You would say that it isn't ignoarance- it's
stupidity!


<sarcasm> Ya... Americans have always been so educated and wise when
it comes to motor vehicles in general. That's why Harley outsells BMW
It's pretty much the same reasons why the divorce rate is over 50%-
people are more interested in how it looks, how fast it goes from 0 to
bedroom, and what it is worth than what's inside or how long it will
last.

I second that. I looked for quite some time for:
-240
-wagon
-light color
-stick
The car I got was not in the condition that the owner nor the shop
said it was, but it is solid, rust-free from what I can tell, and has
a pretty good drive train (good, strong motor with very low oil
consumption).

__ __
Randy & \ \/ /alerie's
\__/olvos
'90 245 Estate - '93 965 Estate
"Shelby" & "Kate"

1948 Chrysler and parts car - for sale
1983 Chevy Blazer 4wd - for sale
1974 Ford Pickup 4wd - garbage hauler

 

I agree with you in toto up to here, however there is a tipping point about
Harleys--they have just such a powerful aura such a rep, even though a Gold
Wing or a BMW would make more sense for all the reasons I just bought a '94
940 turbo with 170 on it for $2000, there is just this special pull that is
based upon so many cultural things that will most likely have me and my wife
(advice from other Harley biker girls to here outside a biker bar we went to
hang out at "make sure he buys you a seat with armrests BEFORE you ever get
on it, hun") in the next years.

There is a Yami--the FJR1300 that does look good however. OTOH many
Americans are fat, me and my wife included, and Harley and to a lesser
extent, Honda have made their machine fit us as we are rather then as we
were when we first wanted a bad ass bike and went to college, bought a
house, got married etc...

LOL I have been laughed at time and time again when I suggest an old Volvo,
BMW, or MB to folks--I also am partial to well maintained 4 cyl Hondas, and
quite frankly I think american iron like the new Malibu or the all time up
side down mobile, the Dodge stratus/Chrysler sebring (~$10k 2 yrs old
wholesale) are also quite good alternatives, however the neon and kia
whatever will always sell to people who believe new is good and old is bad.

 

Just as you said, most people are ignorant and don't care at all what's
under the skin, they want a car that's "cool" and looks like a flashy
plastic toy. That said, there's plenty of people out there who got a Volvo
thinking it was ugly and then it grew on them as they got to know it. I've
converted a few people myself. 240s are not flashy but they're solid well
designed cars that will last a long time and personally I love the clean
functional look, built to work and built to last.

 

....................>

I quite agree, but OTOH bits like pedal rubbers, hoses... can be expensive
and there is not the ready supply of recon radiators, motors etc when they
finally do pack up. It can get to the point where you throw away a great
body (I've seen many in yards) because it will cost much more to fix the
motor than a more common younger piece of crap. And being relatively rare,
most don't know that much about them. While they are a great buy as an old
car, I wouldn't pay a lot for one.

 

Huh? Good used motors are easy to come by, they're a dime a dozen since they
hardly ever fail. Radiators and other parts are easy to find too.

 

Volvo motors may last a long time, but in my experience the bodies last even
longer in comparison to many other cars. But it doesn't seem to make sense
that something which hardly fails would be a dime a dozen, specially when
cheaper cars outnumber them many many times. Wouldn't ppl keep them until
they do fail? It's got to be easier and cheaper to buy recon, after market
and used parts for something which there are hundreds more of... and which
fail more often?

 

Speaking as a 240 owner, I'd say the low market value in many
areas comes down to these issues:

* Fuel economy. It's hard to find a four cylinder car that gets
less than 25 MPG, but you have to work to get a 240 automatic UP
to that figure. Our Camry weighs the same, has the same size
engine, automatic trans, and gets from 4 to 10 MPG more when driven
exactly the same way as the 240. That's *average*, not highway MPG.

* Reliability. This isn't what it sounds like, as 240s are no
more likely to break down than any other car of the same age.
What they ARE likely to do, however, is require very regular
preventative repairs (plastic radiator replacement, flame trap
service, throttle body cleaning, etc) that Japanese cars need
much less often. We've had the 240 for 6 years, and it's been
worked on at least as much as much as my 20 year old Civic Si.
Our '95 Camry, while not perfect, is a fuel-thrifty, reliable
*dream* in comparison.

* Glitches. Closely related to reliabilty, but not things that
disable, or threaten to disable, the car. The radios fail, the
seat heaters fail, the fan motors fail, the hood latches fail,
the tailights fill with water, etc.

* Age. They stopped making them in '93. I'd think twice about
buying a '93 *anything* in 2005, and most 240s are much older
than the '93's, not to mention less sophisticated.

So in short, the 240 is a tank. Like a tank it is rugged,
long-lived, great in a crash, bad on fuel, requires regular
(virtually monthly) maintainance, is fun to drive but not Sporty,
and isn't the best car for the typical, non-shade-tree-mechanic
driver. It's a niche car, with a devoted following.
--







http://freevision.org/michael/index.html

 

I agree with all those points, Michael, and would add that Volvo's
reputation for ruggedness has diminished in the last decade with the advent
of the FWD/AWD cars. While the older models shouldn't be affected by that
new perception, they are.

Toyotas and Hondas are the new holders of the "reliable" reputation, and as
with the older Volvos they can be expected to last 200-300K miles. Honda is
losing ground recently because of the automatic transmission problems with
the 6 cylinder engines. Toyota has been the stodgy marque anyway, more in
line with the Volvo tradition. When you factor in at least the perception of
better fuel economy (although 6 cylinder Accords are in the same economy
league as later 240s) Volvo is just not as attractive.

Mike

 

Well they may not fall apart, but they do get wrecked. All three of the
U-pull yards near me normally have from 6 to a couple dozen Volvos, the
motors are almost always there, and they're only $100-$150 for a good
running one or $50-$75 for a mostly complete core. There's just not much
demand for them and they're usually in good condition still. I've gotten
several fairly new radiators at those same yards too.

 

I am on board with this.

Most car buyers don't want a car that is a minimum of 12 years old.
Americans think that older cars are necessarily unreliable and that
newer cars are necessarily better. Most Americans think that 100,000
miles is a very good lifespan for a car, and that after that many miles
the car is no longer safe to operate. And finally, in America cars are
seen as an extension of the driver; there is not a lot of prestige in an
old car (until the car is old enough to be a "classic" car).

Volvo enthusiasts, on the other hand, know that most 240s are good for
200,000 to 400,000 miles. They are safe, durable and dependable. If
one followed the rather detailed maintenance schedule, someone who
bought a Volvo at 40 could plan on leaving it for the children as an
inheritance. Of course, this maintenance schedule led to the belief
that Volvos are "expensive" cars to own and operate- never mind that
maintenance is cheaper than a new car.

I'll admit quite selfishly that I am pleased by this. I can buy a 240
for cash at a very reasonable price, spend a reasonable amount of money
in maintenance, and drive it for years. If I had a garage to work in, a
few more tools and a lot more time I could do much of the work myself.
240s are great home mechanic cars.

 

Rarity probably depends on where you live. Here in the Minneapolis-St.
Paul area, you almost can't drive a block without seeing at least 1
Volvo 240. There are thousands of them on the roads around here.

 

Your Camry weighs 3800 pounds? I had no idea they were that heavy.

My 1990 240 sedan gets 25 mpg average all the time. I've never had to
"work" to improve mileage, that's just what it gets. Best highway
mileage was 29.5 mpg earlier this summer, running a bit lean due to a
malfunctioning AMM. My wife's 1993 240 wagon gets about 24 mpg on
average.

 

As an American, I can say that is a generalization. I prefer cars with at
least 80K miles on the odometer, and 100K is right in the sweet spot. Our
765T was an exception - it had only 60K. At 50K miles it is hard to tell how
the car has been treated; at 100K it is hard to hide.

The last used car I bought was my daughter's '93 Honda Accord, at 163K
miles. It now has 210K and is still going strong. But the critical issue is
"who is going to do the maintenance?" Buying a high mileage car requires
enough savvy to know what to look for and a willingness to do maintenance
yourself. Most cars in that range are due for a timing belt change (in fact,
it is a common trigger for the sale) and having a shop do that increases the
cost sharply. Taking the car to a shop for brake jobs or drive axle changes
is also a tough row to hoe.

I am active in several other car groups, and this one has certainly the
highest expected level of DIY of any of them (although Honda comes close).

Mike

 

What amazed me was when I compared the '84 Nissan 300ZX two-seater I had
with our '85 765 turbo wagon - the weights were within 100 lbs of each
other, and the wagon had a slightly tighter turning radius! Fuel economy was
essentially identical; 20 mpg for each.

Mike

 

While I admit I haven't specifically gone looking for a motor, there is a
specialist volvo wrecker here (Perth Western Australia) and most others have
hardly any. They would have maybe 40 bodies & many in good cond., but sure
they have nowhere near that many motors or gearboxes which wouldn't leave
much to choose from in a specific model. Volvos here are invariably
advertised for wrecking with good bodies, but rarely good mechanicals. While
it's likely you would find a good motor here, it would probably not be as
cheap or easy to find as say a ford or toyota. And those last maybe 350,000
km well treated and a head gasket at half time. Might be a question of how
many new ones are sold, volvos are not real popular here... or cheap.

 

Learn the difference between GROSS weight and CURB weight. Volvo 240s
are between 2860-3035lb for a sedan and 2980-3091 for a wagon.

Which is really horrible for a relatively underpowered car. Even worse
when you have the AW71 without the lock up torque converter or absolute
worst one of the 3 speed BW35 automatics. If you have a 240 Turbos
you'll _never_ see 25mpg. I've owned seven 240s over the last 16 years
including sedans, wagons, manuals, autos, turbos and NA and they all got
lousy mileage. These days that's a serious knock to their
attractiveness. I wouldn't give up my '84 242Ti, but I'm glad I'm not
commuting with it.

Bill

 

New Volvos cost around double the price of a ford falcon here in Australia.
Is it the same there?