I had an interesting conversation with my mechanic today. I dropped off my 1989 240 wagon to have some work done. I'm getting new tires put on the car, and I told him not to get too extravagent with the replacements because I would probably be trading to a newer 240 wagon within the next 6 months or so. This led us to a conversation about some of the 240s I'd been considering. I mentioned on that's a 1993 240 wagon that only has 54,000 miles on it. He told me that a car that age with so few miles can have its own problems. He gave me a list of cars, including Volvo, where running them so little as that one can actually cause mechanical problems, as these cars have engines that are built for use and wear. I'd never thought of that before. I asked him, too, as I'm looking, what would be the maximum number of miles on a '92 or '93 240 wagon I should consider. He said if he were shopping for a 240, mileage (other than what he mentioned above) would not be his main concern. He said what's far more important is, first, how the car's been maintained, and even how the miles (if it has high mileage) were accumulated (highway better as opposed to city). If it's a very well maintained 240, miles shouldn't be a major concern. Anyone have any thoughts -- agree or not -- with any of this? Thanks, Patricia
He's full of it. 5K a year is perfectly fine and more than enough. That's ~15 miles a day, on average. Now, if it was only 20K, yes, there might be some problems. Buy the thing and enjoy. You could replace half the car for what a year of payments on a new one would cost, so don't let him dissuade you. I think he's actually looking for a bigger paycheck that a new car will entail, as a 240 isn't making him very much money.
Yep, low mileage is an issue... it means the car was probably driven for little short hops every day for someone to goto work maybe 1-2kms away (or little old lady who drove it to church on sunday, and the market on wednsday)... in the winter the engine never got hot, in the summer it never "really" got properly warmed up, the car was rarely on the highway, and it never got the snot beaten out of it on the highway to clean out the carbon buildup in the engine... Water collects in the exhaust, the sheer number of start/stop cycles of the alternator, starter, ignition etc... The battery always needs replacement in these cars..... How do I know this... because I used to drive around in my dads old 1991 Golf 5 speed... When I got it 4 years ago it had 39500kms on it (we live 2-2.5Km from his work).... the car was around 9 years old at the time, it shook almost violently at intersections, and threatened a stall every time it started up a grade (you revved to 3000-3500, not forgetting to blip the accelerator twice before doing so, let the clutch out 1/2 way, let the RPM drop, and proceeded from then-on like a sane person)... this car was maintained as per VW's service guide based on months/years, not KMs (ie, 4 months for oil changes, 2 years for fluids, 10 years for timing belt...) after 4 years of me driving it was up to 70000kms on it, but the car still had issues relating to its hard cycle of stop/start cycles (got rid of the shakes after a year and a bit of me beating the crap out of the engine, letting it go to 6000-6500 before shifting, more the occasionally... hey I was 16/17 what do you want......) the catalytic converter was shot, exhaust system kept rotting, despite being lifetime warranty, numerous weird problems that are not common on VWs - The Golf was also designed as a high KMs car, they are about as reliable as a 240 in the proper hands, most examples live for 200-300K Kms (body/electrics fail before the engine), tho most were never loved/cared for as much as Volvo's most likely because of their lower when new price - they are economy hatchbacks.... Well maintained Golfs have been had with 500+ K miles on them with no real issues, there engine is a sturdy simple design, like the BF230 engine (not quite as robust, perhaps). Our Volvo 960 is also a low KMs car, but it gets long drives just not a lot of them... Used to be a short hop car when new, with long familiy vacations on it on occasion, now my mother drives it for longer distances (and I get to "play" with it every so often...), so it's never ran better . It's got 149K Kms over 11 years. I'd say a car with moderate Kms, well maintained would be great.
Buy the thing and enjoy. You could replace half the car for what a I think you really misunderstood my post. He's been my mechanic through all my 240s and he knows how I feel about them. There's no question at all about me buying a new car, and he well knows it. There's absolutely nothing for him to gain by intentionally steering me wrong. Just FYI.
I think 25-30K is "low". 54K is low but acceptable. That's over 100 miles a week - that's got to include enough freeway miles and such as well as daily starts and stops(not just a weekend warrior).
I wouldn't be concerned about the average low mileage 240, sure it isn't good for them to sit, but if they have been sitting this will usually be apparent. He's completely right about the maintenance and the type of mileage though, that's far more important than the actual number of miles on the car. I've seen 240's with 250k on them that were in much better condition than others with less than half that. If you get a different 240, look for one that's in excellent condition inside and out, has full service records, have a look at things like the oil filter, is it a Volvo, Mann, or other reputable brand, or is it a cheapie Fram? Look under the oil fill cap and check for sludge buildup, look at the air filter and airbox, under the car to check for leaks and damage, if everything is in nice shape, the mileage is virtually irrelevant.
