safety vs. model number, model year for US volvos

my daughter is going to start driving soon and i want to put her in an
automatic shift volvo, for safety reasons, as she learns to drive.
However, for money reasons, i can't afford a new volvo.

are there models or model years to avoid, if safety is my only
concern?

i ask because some well-meaning soul told me there were, but had no
specifics to offer.

thanks in advance.

 

You can't go wrong with a well maintained '88 to '93 240, all of the
bugs were worked out by then and they run forever with basic
maintenance and replacement of wear items. The 700 series of the same
vintage is also a good choice as it uses the same drivetrain. For a
few more $$$ you could step up to the 900 series, also with the robust
B-230/AW driveline.
Dave Shannon
daveshan@DIE_SPAMMERScox.net (Spring Valley CA)
1984 245DL 200K
1984 245Ti 190K
1988 240DL 190K
'01 Jeep Sahara 15K
www.volvo2.homestead.com

 

Speaking strictly of safety you really can't go wrong, all Volvos are very
safe cars, and it's hard to say which is more safe than another. For other
reasons I would definitly avoid those with the V6 engine, turbo (great but
not for a beginning driver), and the troublesome ZF automatic transmissions
used in many of the older 700 series cars.

 

I'm guessing you're in the US since you talk about automatic shift and are
considering the 'big' Volvos. If not, what about a 440? They're considerably
smaller and much cheaper on insurance. Plus, she can then learn the manual
gearbox (in the UK, most cars are manual and if you have an auto licence,
you can't drive anything else).

For the money, you'd also get a newer car, which must be a bonus, especially
in terms of safety, reliability, rust-limitation etc? I've just picked up a
'95 440 with 87k for £1,300.

Just a few thoughts. Might not be relevant though.

Regards etc,
Richard Carter

========================
richard at rjcarter dot net

 

Although all Volvo's are generally "safe" compared with most other cars,
it's worth noting that SIPS (Side Impact Protection System) came in with the
900 series cars. Seeing as safety is your prime consideration, it's probably
worth considering. As no doubt someone will mention, the ZF auto boxes were
more troublesome than the AW. Also go for an estate if you want a more
useful car, which will have better resale value later on, which are also
considerably easier to reverse (you can see where the corners are!)

The 'little' (in Volvo terms) 440's are good cars, although I have never
been a fan of the French engines, which are no way up to the longevity and
reliability of the pucker Volvo lumps. The 8-valve Volvo engines will give
you the greatest life expectancy with minimal cost to keep alive.

Graham W

 

Here is the real world fatality and injury data from:

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl.htm

The injury index reflects the injury insurance costs experienced for
each model. An injury index of 100 is normal for that year. Lower is
better.

1989-1992
Volvo 740/760 Station Wagon ---- injury index of 47
Volvo 240 Station Wagon -------- injury index of 74
Volvo 740/760 4-door ----------- injury index of 89
Volvo 240 4-door --------------- injury index of 93

1993-1995
Volvo 850 Station Wagon -------- injury index of 50
Volvo 940/960 Station Wagon ---- injury index of 59
Volvo 850 4-door --------------- injury index of 66
Volvo 940/960 4-door ----------- injury index of 79

1996-1998
Volvo V70 Station Wagon -------- injury index of 46
Volvo S70 4-door --------------- injury index of 77
Volvo 960/S90 4-door ----------- injury index of 85

1999-2002
Volvo V70 Station Wagon -------- injury index of 42
Volvo S60 4-door --------------- injury index of 59
Volvo S90 4-door --------------- injury index of 61
Volvo S40 4-door --------------- injury index of 85

and from:

http://www.highwaysafety.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/passveh.htm

The death rate reflects the number of deaths per million vehicle-years.
Lower is better.

1994-1997
Volvo 850 death rate ------- 39
Pontiac Sunfire death rate - 206
Geo Metro death rate ------- 212

 

I know most people here might yell at me, but a 1996-1997 850, naturally
aspirated model. 1996 was suppose to be the best year for them. The car will
have more safety features then the 240, a newer, more modern engine that
should drink less gas. It will also have front wheel drive, probably a good
thing for a newer driver, especially in winter. It also will have sufficient
power for her to easily merge onto any freeway (honestly, admit it the NA
200/700/900 series are slow to get on the highway, this is NOT a good thing
for a teenager, it's scary enough the first little while on the expressway
for most people, you don't need a slow car to make it worse)

 

The 300 and 400 series never made it over the ocean. We can get standard
transmissions on basically everything except the 960's over here.

 

[ ... ]

The _last_ thing you need to do is give a teenager a fast car; it just
lets them get into trouble more quickly than they realize they're in
it, and gives them less control (more power means breaking the wheels
loose easier) to get out of it. A slower car is safer and more predictable
for beginning drivers; merging into traffic involves more than flooring
the gas pedal.


Gary

 

I cannot agree with you more.

 

Well I'm 20, so I am just out of my young driver phase.

Now yes, too much power is a bad thing, too little is also a bad thing.
There is a middle ground, that is why I said the NA 850. We have a 960 at
home, and that was a good learning car, more power then the 850, and with
rear drive made it interesting learning how to drive in the winter. I'd say
it may have had too much power for my testosterone filled body at the time,
but it was a lot more comfortable to drive that car then our old VW. That
old thing used to stall a lot, have trouble starting on hills, and merge
onto the highways.... Now this was all do to a sever carbon problem in the
engine, and ancient spark plugs, and a terribly mounted exaust system (not
bas design, but the hangers would break and the system would rattle and make
the car kick back on startups).

I'd much prefer a car that is comfortable to do EVERYTHING in. As long as
you teach your childer responsibility a moderately powerfull car is fine...
My friends never drove wrecklessly and they had more power cars then I did.

 

I definitly agree, I love my turbo, but before it (while I too was still a
teenager) I had a woefully underpowered Ford Ranger (found out later the
timing belt had been off a tooth) and while it had trouble getting up to
freeway speed in the first place, I wouldn't say that was unsafe, I just had
to watch for an opening and gradually increase speed to get in, never caused
any problems.

As I said though, the turbo is great, I love it, but more than once I've
ended up sideways or had a very close call when the road was wet, the boost
hits and the back end tries to come around, it happens shockingly quickly
and you really have to expect it. Power can get you out of trouble, but 9
times out of 10 it gets you into more and only an experienced driver should
have a powerful car.

The stock N/A B230F isn't bad, I drove my mom's wagon again the other day to
haul some stuff and was just thinking how well it does with what power it
has. Low end torque is even better than my turbo, and it has no trouble at
all getting to 70 mph. Yeah it's not particularly quick to pass at highway
speed but you can hit 60 in 3rd gear in a reasonable amount of time.

 

Not so fast Hoss. There's a good reason insurance companies
consider you in the young driver phase until 25. You don't need a lot
of power to merge onto an interstate. From the perspective of
learning good driving skills, it's a liability since less need to
look/think much ahead. With 50% more horsepower, a young driver can
get into trouble much, much faster. 114 hp is plenty, and knowing
that you can't stomp on the pedal anytime you need a bit more will
make one a better, safer driver. If you don't believe me, rent a
Uhaul van for a day (or pull some plug wires on the 960) and see how
your driving habits change from necessity.
As far as which Volvo, the 850 is unnecessarily quick for a new
driver. I prefer the 240 over the 740, but 240 wagons are generally
more expensive than 740s of the same year. 240 has more room, feels
tougher, hold value better and is the classic Volvo. However, IIRC
the 745 may have better driver visibility since door bigger and post
is farther back. Avoid sunroofs (leakage) and my experience is that
alloy wheels warp very easily (stick w/ steel). Years with ABS brakes
and SRS (airbag) may impact your decision, though I don't particularly
like ABS (something to go wrong $$) and I'm not sure airbag
necessary/safer.

 

ABS, at least modern ABS system have been proven to be safer, but you must
know how to use them. Airbags IN CONJUCTION WITH SEATBELTS!!! and this can't
be stressed enough, and when you are the proper distance away do safe lives,
side airbags are known to help out too, safety belts do the most tho.
Remember the 850 is also designed to crush better then the 240's, tho a 240
won't need as much work for a fender bender.

We've never had issues with sunroofs, or alloy rims, tho I had to replace
one (slammed into a curb avoiding an oncoming car that went into my lane)
and it was quite expensive.

And you know what, power does not change how a person drives their car,
unless it's to compensate for power. If you are an aggressive driver, you
will drive as aggressively in any car. I found I drive more aggressively
with a standard transmission car, with not as much power then I do on a
powerfull automatic. I think the problem is with young drivers is that their
parents do most of the teaching, and they don't teach them any bit of
respect. I took a driver training course (almost mandatory or your insurance
is huge dollars), then my dad made sure I could handle any situation likely
to be encountered, and he gave me plenty of literature to read. Sure I speed
a little, still do.... but nothing greater then the road and weather can
handle, and never speed in traffic.

I stand by saying the 850 is a better car for a young person... For safety,
dependability, and another thing IMAGE.... as good as the 240 is, no one
likes the style of them... well I kinda do, but I like Volvo's.

BTW, I'm used to driving a pretty underpowered car, I drive a diesel VW to
work every day to save money on gas. Don't drive any differently with the
Volvo.

 

We've never had issues with sunroofs, or alloy rims, tho I had to replace

Leaking sunroofs are a known Volvo issue (which stains the headliner)
and alloys have a tendency to warp/bend, possibly from curbs as well
as from incorrect tightening and heat. Had to replace all 4 on a 745
in 70K miles, and not one from potholes or curbs. $$. Have only
replaced a couple of steel rims in around 500K miles with 245s.

As far as image, depends on your region. I live in a college town
and the 240 is preferred by kids. Most think the 850/v70/940 looks
like they are driving their parents' car.

 

I don't live in a college town, but live in an area of Chicago that
is favoured by younger folk (the under 30 crowd), Wicker Park. The
240 is _definitely_ more popular than the 850 with that set.

 

Wow, most people I know wouldn't be caught dead in a 240 (mainly because
there are hardly any left, and the ones that are, are generally looking a
little rough).

I'm still standing by that the 850 is a better car tho.

 

I suppose they could leak if you don't clean the drains out... This is a
problem on other cars as well tho.

 

Just depends where you are, the area I live in is crawling with 240's, a
great many of them in very good to excellent condition. A few hours south in
Oregon there's even more, Portland has swarms of Volvos.

 

Agreed completely. They salt the streets here, and there's still plenty
of 240s around. Also, you have to realize that the young folk who live
in Wicker Park are, shall we say, artistically inclined? Good looking
cars aren't their highest priority.