(Lack of) appeal of older Volvos (240)

...............
They might have the "styling of a brick" as they say, but by geez the're
great for merging in traffic. And a good car for taking their driving test
in, specially with that incredible turning circle.

 

My '86 Civic Si - and that '84-'87 series of Civics - is a nightmare
to
work on, but I haven't had to do much. After doing a couple of oil
changes,
and spilling oil because the filter is *behind* the engine, I let
Valvoline
or a dealer do it - while I watch. The 240 is much easier, access-wise,
but
I just prefer a car that doesn't need that easy access.
--







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

 

Depending where it is, a US gallon is about 1.2 IMP gallons. So 1 car which
does 25mp(US)g would only do about 20mp(Imp)g... in Australia or UK for
instance.

 

I think the conversion is backward on that. 1 US gallon is 3.7854 L while 1
Imperial gallon is 4.546 L.

Mike

 

My daughter's Accord is the same way, and I always shield the exhaust pipe
(which runs directly under the oil filter) with aluminum foil. The oil
filter on our '85 765T is worse - I have to move the power steering pump out
of the way to change it. I understand there is a dog-leg version of the
turbo oil drain tube that allows the filter to be removed - but there is
still no way to get a wrench on the filter. I almost always dump most of the
oil out of the filter trying to get it out.

Mike

 

You mean... not everything is bigger in America?

 

Only in Texas ;-)

Mike

 

I don't know about that.

I'd take an old, high quality item over a new not-so-high-quality item
any day.

As it happens I needed the assistance of my neighbour recently to pump
my brake pedal for me while I bled the lines on my 1985 245.

He owns a newish Chrysler product and he just bought a new Hyundai SUV
for his wife to replace her Mazda MPV whose engine has been sounding
like a cement mixer full of Blue Box contents and has been
haemorrhaging fluids onto their driveway.

In any case, he was somewhat struck with awe at the fact that (1) the
engine in the 245 fired up and ran as smoothly as it did after having
sat idle for over a month and (2) the solidity and general overall
good condition of a vehicle that has attained "antique" status in the
view of the Ministry of Transportation.

One of his sons will be getting his drivers' license in a few months
and he wondered if I'd consider selling him the 245 so that he would
have less to worry about when it came to the saftey of his son on
wheels.

"No way!" I told him. I'd sell him my Camry wagon before I'd part with
the 245. And I said that I'd give him my Suzuki Samurai for free.

 

.................
Not newish. New. After a couple of years it ain't new any more, how many
cars give grief in the first 2-3 years? Of course the statement doesn't
consider resale value or anything other than what's the best to have right
now. Many ppl only keep them 3 years - not my practice (I do the exact
opposite) but there's usually not much wrong with the car they currently
have.

 

Some slack-jawed yokel rear-ended my 91 245 yesterday...he was looking
at traffic, and not the car in front of him.. We got out, looked at
the front end damage on his car (minor, but evident) and the lack of
same on the back of mine...I thought about getting some time at the
chiropractor from his insurance carrier, but decided to drive on
unharmed instead.

I'm glad I wasn't driving any of my other cars - including the 01 V70.
I don't think I would have fared as well...

CL

 

Ppl assume volvos were safer because they are made of thicker sheet metal.
I'm sure they are better designed than most cars but I believe the other is
either a myth for those who can't tell the difference, or the impresion of
weight given by the appearance... but as I say it works during that critical
pre-collision stage.

 

Ya I wonder how an old volvo would compare with a new car in collision
testing?

 

New cars here are now registered on a points system for safety features, so
a car with say airbags standard probably needed them to rate because they
lacked some other feature to gain enough points. Many newer cars collapse
easily, which is good for reducing injuries but not so good for the car.
Seems to me volvos (specially older ones) only collapse in major prangs so
you might still drive away from minor ones.

 

Taurus is probably the closest approximation, though not remotely similar
looking.

 

How much preventative maintenance could you have done on an older car for
half the money saved by buying it over a new one? I know plenty of people
with new cars that have various problems, I found it ironic that my old
roommate bought a brand new truck and it spent more time in the shop than I
spent tinkering with my 15 year old car that had nearly 250K on it at the
time.

Most people don't do it, in fact I don't know anyone offhand who has, but if
you dump $5K into fixing up a $3K car the end result can be a very nice
vehicle, much better than anything one could buy for even $12K new.

 

Try it on a 240 Turbo, I love that car but dang...

 

You took the words right out of my mouth, er hands

 

Happens all the time on the road, generally the new cars crumple, both do a
decent job of protecting the occupants in many cases but the 240 is much
more likely to drive away.

 

Hey no need to tell me, I have never owned a new car and just threw away a
17 year old for a 25 yr old volvo. All up a new car is probably a really bad
buy, (although I still have no money to show for all that). But it still
holds: choose between a new and an old car with no other consideration at
all... you still want the old one? Of course as the new one ages, it's not
new any more and consequently doesn't fit the bill.

 

The Taurus (AKA torn arse) was briefly sold here alongside the Falcon in an
attempt to see if buyers would buy an incredibly ugly FWD instead of the
more moderately styled RWD Falcon. They didn't sell many...