What's the best model Volvo?

  • Thread starter Thread starter VM
  • Start date Start date
Subject: Re: What's the best model Volvo?
From: "James Sweet" [email protected]
Date: 6/14/2004 10:48 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <0kuzc.36531$eu.34460@attbi_s02>




'89 240 DL is gonna be about the best you can get, if you have $5k to spend,
why not dump that into the car you already have to make it like new?
Click to expand...

You're out of touch. The 1992 240 I just got on eBay was $3300 (not counting
the $200 I'm spending to fly out to pick it up), and it's in immaculate
condition. There are lots of great 240s to be found for under $5000 for anyone
who has the intelligence and patience to do the search.
 
<< My bias vote is for the 940 (a '95 turbo one if possible). I have one,
and am very happy with the build quality and reliability.>>

I would concurr. This will be my next Volvo. I currently have a '90 745t

Ronald Reed
 
PButler111 said:
You're out of touch. The 1992 240 I just got on eBay was $3300 (not counting
the $200 I'm spending to fly out to pick it up), and it's in immaculate
condition. There are lots of great 240s to be found for under $5000 for anyone
who has the intelligence and patience to do the search.
Click to expand...

But that's not the point, if a person already has a car they like, a lot can
be done to make it nice again. Could probably fix nearly everything for far
less than $5k, but it'd certainly be easy to spend more than that for a top
notch restoration. All new bushings, shocks, brakes, tires, paint,
upholstery, etc, do all that and you have a car that you *know* is in good
shape, better IMO than taking a gamble on one that *looks* to be in good
shape. I know there's lots of reasonably priced 240's out there but that's
not the point.
 
You're out of touch. The 1992 240 I just got on eBay was $3300 (not
counting

But that's not the point, if a person already has a car they like, a lot can
be done to make it nice again. Could probably fix nearly everything for far
less than $5k, but it'd certainly be easy to spend more than that for a top
notch restoration. All new bushings, shocks, brakes, tires, paint,
upholstery, etc, do all that and you have a car that you *know* is in good
shape, better IMO than taking a gamble on one that *looks* to be in good
shape. I know there's lots of reasonably priced 240's out there but that's
not the point.
Click to expand...

It is kind of the point. It's better to trade up now, while the old car still
has some trade in/retail value. And if I'd had your attitude about not taking
a chance on a new car, I never would have gotten the last two really fabulous
cars I bought through eBay. Hell, given your reasoning, no one would ever buy
a new car if they already had one that ran reliably.
 
Yes. You might get extremely lucky and find a good one on ebay, but
the chances of finding a good one, at a good price, from a dealer, in
the northeast "rust belt", are very slim. Look on cars.com to see
what the better ones can bring. Immaculate ones bring top dollar, not
auction price. You will get what you pay for. Cars being dumped will
have problems. Dealers may be sleazy, but they're not stupid.
 
Subject: Re: What's the best model Volvo?
From: [email protected] (mccaldwell)
Date: 6/16/2004 7:20 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>

Yes. You might get extremely lucky and find a good one on ebay, but
the chances of finding a good one, at a good price, from a dealer, in
the northeast "rust belt", are very slim. Look on cars.com to see
what the better ones can bring. Immaculate ones bring top dollar, not
auction price. You will get what you pay for. Cars being dumped will
have problems. Dealers may be sleazy, but they're not stupid.
Click to expand...

I hate to be repititious, but I just bought my *third* 240 wagon, through eBay,
from "the northeast "rust belt" -- two in New Jersey, one in Connecticut/New
York. Each of these cars was terrific, each as good as or better than
advertised. One was from a private seller, two from dealers. You can't be
suggesting that I just happened to get "extremely lucky" three times in a row?
 
I hate to be repititious, but I just bought my *third* 240 wagon, through eBay,
from "the northeast "rust belt" -- two in New Jersey, one in Connecticut/New
York. Each of these cars was terrific, each as good as or better than
advertised. One was from a private seller, two from dealers. You can't be
suggesting that I just happened to get "extremely lucky" three times in a row?
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmmm??? You would help prospective purchasers much more if you
would honestly describe past experiences. Was the "terrific '87 from
the private seller or dealer"? From your old posts....

"Of course there's a risk to buying a car in another state
without first driving it but, quite frankly, I bought my last two used
cars
locally and drove them first and still got royally screwed. So, after
much
agonizing and angst, I finally decided that $2000 (which includes my
airfare out there) is an acceptable risk . If it were a $5000 or
$10,000 car, no; but $2000 seems like a reasonable risk. ....
I had an '83 wagon that I actually did wreck, during a misadventure on
the
south side of Chicago, as night fell. Very scary. I replaced it with
the '87
wagon I'm driving now, which has served me well for a year. But it
was fairly well worn out when I bought it, more so than I even
realized. I just got around to taking it in for a used car inspection
yesterday. Prognosis: An excellent car to donate to Volunteers of
America. So now I'm in the market to replace it with a car that will
last me for many years to come (assuming I stay away from the south
side of Chicago at night)."
...............
 
Subject: Re: What's the best model Volvo?
From: [email protected] (mccaldwell)
Date: 6/17/2004 7:24 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>

[email protected] (PButler111) wrote in message


row?

Hmmmmmmmm??? You would help prospective purchasers much more if you
would honestly describe past experiences. Was the "terrific '87 from
the private seller or dealer"? From your old posts....
Click to expand...

I did honestly describe my past experiences. The '87 was from a private seller
and was exactly as described. The seller was a really nice guy who took the
time over the next two years to periodically check with me via email to see how
the car was serving me. I got far more than my money's worth out of is car
before moving up to my '89. Again, I've had three very good experiences buying
240s on eBay.
 
I did honestly describe my past experiences. The '87 was from a private seller
and was exactly as described. The seller was a really nice guy who took the
time over the next two years to periodically check with me via email to see how
the car was serving me. I got far more than my money's worth out of is car
before moving up to my '89. Again, I've had three very good experiences buying
240s on eBay.
Click to expand...


My dad bought a 240 Turbo on ebay and the experience was good, but then this
was an $800 car and was expected to be a bit of a project.

I don't think there's anything wrong with ebay, it can be a fine place to
find cars, just that if a person is looking to replace a Volvo with a
similar model needing less work it might just be easier to fix the existing
one rather than replace it. That's just me though, I don't like to get rid
of anything if I can still use it, I know too many people who throw away
their money constantly buying and selling things rather than sticking with
something that works.
 
I just had a look at the archives to see what the consensus was on this
question but it appears that the thread took off on a tangent.

A low-mileage(~170k km) '92 960 wagon recently came up on Ebay motors
that looked to be in pretty good shape.

I had a quick look at the JD Power ratings at the Edmunds.com site and
it appears that the '92 960 was rated as being somewhat mediocre in the
long-term reliability ratings but the '93 appeared to be one of the
best for all Volvos.

I'm wondering if people on this group have found this to be the case ?
(ie '93 960 being *the* best Volvo new or used in terms of long-term
reliability. )

I ask because JD Power rated Buicks with the 3.8 litre engine pretty
highly too but a number of people I have quizzed about them have talked
about premature engine failure, poor build quality, etc., all the
things you would expect from an American auto.
 
Based on my experience of eleven volvo estates over the years, all of which
did over 200,00 miles and one 448,000 I think I am in a position to give an
opinion.
Out of the 240 range I would go for '89 245GL;
of the 740's, '89 740 GLT;
and 900's the '95 Wentworth 2.0T.
Probably, out of them all, the '89 740 GLT has the better build and
reliability track record. The 16 valve 2.3L engine is excellent for torque,
reliability and smoothness although not particularly quick off the line
perfect for motorway cruising and towing.
The 2.0 turbo engine is lively and reasonably economical, probably one of
the most reliable and resilient turbo's I've come across and that includes
the Merc Kompressors.
The 240 series are strong robust vehicles but certain years do suffer from
rust.
900's on the other hand are very refined, a little fragile in places, suffer
from numerous electronic reliability issues, but all are very quick off the
mark, hold the road well without wallowing and eat the miles with ease.
I have never owned an 850 or any of the late or smaller models, although I
have many friends that do. Amongst them they don't rate the 850 very highly
due to the vastly reduced cargo space, high cost of ownership and
reliability issues, but they are exceptionally nice to drive. No one I know
ever liked the 300 series and the 400's had some excellent models such as
the 480 GLT.

So! It really depends on what you're yard stick is and what you want the car
for. I hope this has helped.
 
Eunoia Eigensinn said:
I'm wondering if people on this group have found this to be the case ?
(ie '93 960 being *the* best Volvo new or used in terms of long-term
reliability. )
Click to expand...

Definitely not the best ever. The 940s are considered better used cars
than the 960s. The best 940s were the '94 and '95.

As a model, the 850/V70 were the best run of a model. Two notable
exceptions were the '93 & '94 850 in which the transmission was getting
bugs worked out, and the '98 and '01 where some changes were made and
they weren't all for the best.
 
We've had our 1993 960 wagon since new and it's been the best car we've ever
had.

No turbo to fail on it, 6 cylinder - inline, nice leather interior with
velvet headliner and pillar liners, SIPS, dual airbags, good ABS brakes,
excellent highway fuel range (8.9-10L per 100kms highway, 11-14L per 100kms
city... drinks gas in the winter in city driving... maybe a bit more then
14L on some tanks on the coldest weeks)

Never had serious trouble with the car, never left us stranded... its been
good, only age related and wear and tear items.
 
Eunoia Eigensinn said:
I just had a look at the archives to see what the consensus was on this
question but it appears that the thread took off on a tangent.

A low-mileage(~170k km) '92 960 wagon recently came up on Ebay motors
that looked to be in pretty good shape.

I had a quick look at the JD Power ratings at the Edmunds.com site and
it appears that the '92 960 was rated as being somewhat mediocre in the
long-term reliability ratings but the '93 appeared to be one of the
best for all Volvos.

I'm wondering if people on this group have found this to be the case ?
(ie '93 960 being *the* best Volvo new or used in terms of long-term
reliability. )

I ask because JD Power rated Buicks with the 3.8 litre engine pretty
highly too but a number of people I have quizzed about them have talked
about premature engine failure, poor build quality, etc., all the
things you would expect from an American auto.
Click to expand...

Reliability ratings can and often are misleading, they just don't take into
account for or provide enough information.

The 960's overall are good cars, though anything that old will be somewhat
hit or miss. The overall design is solid but a lot is riding on how well it
was looked after by the previous owner(s).
 
Rob Guenther said:
We've had our 1993 960 wagon since new and it's been the best car we've ever
had.

No turbo to fail on it, 6 cylinder - inline, nice leather interior with
velvet headliner and pillar liners, SIPS, dual airbags, good ABS brakes,
excellent highway fuel range (8.9-10L per 100kms highway, 11-14L per 100kms
city... drinks gas in the winter in city driving... maybe a bit more then
14L on some tanks on the coldest weeks)

Never had serious trouble with the car, never left us stranded... its been
good, only age related and wear and tear items.
Click to expand...


A customer of mine has a 96 V90 3l 24v with currently 280k miles on it, in
not bad shape, but its beginning to cost more to run now, things like crank
oil seals front and rear, waterpump, alternator bearings, radiator leaking,
door hinges saging, the occasional coil pack failures (well documented) and
the auto box is getting abit tired now despite regular fluid changes, but
not slipping yet!

I'd still stick with the 4 cyl turbo 940's though.

Tim.
 
James Sweet said:
Reliability ratings can and often are misleading, they just don't take into
account for or provide enough information.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal information on one or two vehicles is much worse. Reliability
ratings and satisfaction ratings are real world numbers reported by real
people, a lot of real world people. They are what they are. They don't
make gold out of lemons. They don't make lemons out of gold. They are
a tool indicating the typical result. As time goes on, both ratings get
much more accurate since they reflect the long term satisfaction and
reliability and not early sample defects which are covered under
warranty and no concern to the used car buyer.
 
i like my 1993 940t...it has 240,000 miles on it and runs like
a champ...the turbo moves this light, 4door sedan right along...

the 940's seem (to me) to drive and feel great .. even after 100,000
miles on the clock.......good value for the $$ imho...
 
Everything you mentioned could go wrong with the turbo 4, at roughly the
same kilometerage, no? I mean, it's all age/wear related items that engines
all have.

My big worry is the turbo on such an old motor.... How much are Volvo
turbo's to replace? or are they quite rebuildable.
 
pighash said:
Anecdotal information on one or two vehicles is much worse.
Reliability
ratings and satisfaction ratings are real world numbers
reported by real
people, a lot of real world people. They are what they are.
They don't
make gold out of lemons. They don't make lemons out of gold.
They are
a tool indicating the typical result. As time goes on, both
ratings get
much more accurate since they reflect the long term
satisfaction and
reliability and not early sample defects which are covered
under
warranty and no concern to the used car buyer.
--
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '02 Volvos.
The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '02 through European Delivery.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html
Click to expand...

My heart is beating for the old Volvo 164E especially 1972
I owned a few of them amd still missing them all. Here in Sweden it´s
not so easy to find a good 164 anymore how is it in the States?
240 is still a good car but if you search for something newer buy a
940 Turbo it will not let you doun in the first corner.
I left to be a Volvo owner fore some years ago and tryed VW,BMW,and
european FORD but compares to Volvo it was totaly crap.
Now im driving Chevy Tahoe and found back to the realability that
volvo had. (just to turn the key and drive away all the time)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top