Volvo 240 Thoughts? (A Family Car Search Thread, Bought a Sentra)

[YSSMAN]

Well, I e-mailed the guy with the white one today to see what the status is on the car. We're still waiting to find out what the status is on the Camry as well. Otherwise, we're poking around for options, but we're already being told by some of our friends up here that we should go looking for something like the 240 anyway.

 

[TS]

I agree the Volvo is solid, Toronado and Wolfe, but come on. The thing is 20 years old. The interior will be worn, rubber parts will be on their last legs, all the dynamics are like a car that's... 20 years old. At least replace the Camry with another 92-96 Camry, for ****'s sake. Replacing a 95 Camry with an 85 Volvo 240 would be like me replacing my 01 A4 with a 94 W124. A more solid car, but jesus christ really?

Worst generalization ever. Not every 20 year old car will have all of those problems, and not everybody looking for a 20 year old car will be turned away from buying it just because of that. Plus, those problems you mentioned come about just because of age and the parts wearing/deteriorating.

For example, my car (can be seen here) has been kept in pristine condition since new in 1988, the paint is in excellent condition, there are no cracks, rips or tears in the leather seats, no cracks or fading on the dash, all of which are rare, considering that I'm from Arizona and there are cars that only 10 years old in worse condition.

Granted, my car isn't 100% perfect (my exhaust system rattles, my sunroof doesn't work), but I was anticipating some things to be wrong when I bought it, otherwise I would've spent my money on something else.

Plus, what if YSSMAN wants a car slightly beat up so he can fix it up, drive it and possibly sell it for more than what he purchased it for?

 

[homeforsummer]

At least replace the Camry with another 92-96 Camry, for ****'s sake. Replacing a 95 Camry with an 85 Volvo 240 would be like me replacing my 01 A4 with a 94 W124. A more solid car, but jesus christ really?

That's not a particularly good comparison. You're comparing a mid-nineties wheeled refridgerator with an old solid comfortable lump with plenty of character, with two very competent yet fairly characterless equipment-packed exec saloons. People in the market for exec saloons are unlikely to trade to an older model, wheras people looking for a cheap, comfortable runaround are more likely to trade back, especially if the model in question is much more interesting.

 

[Joey D]

Worst generalization ever. Not every 20 year old car will have all of those problems

Actually a car coming from Michigan will more then likely have more problems then just that. Between our harsh winters and the inane amount of salt put on the road and the pot hole ridden roads cars that have been driven over a long period of time tend to suffer from issues.

With any older car I would go over it with a fine tooth comb before committing to anything whatever it may be.

 

[High-Test]

It will never ever break (and unlike Mercedes with similar qualities, when it does it would be cheap to fix), it would laugh off a million miles on the odometer, it would do quite well in the snow and it would be worth a laugh if he ever wanted to do spirited driving with it (more so than the Grand Prix at least). He would even have room to play if he wanted to tune it. Go for it.

Go for the 240.

I'd scream W124 until my larnyx collapses, but they suck to fix. Sure, the mercedes is as tanklike as the 240, but the infallibility of the clumsiness of some drivers causes problems. I shattered the oil pan of my car. seven hundred bucks later... (MB wanted 987, not including towing)

 

[eiriksmil]

Granted, my car isn't 100% perfect (my exhaust system rattles, my sunroof doesn't work), but I was anticipating some things to be wrong when I bought it, otherwise I would've spent my money on something else.

My neighbours '07 Legacy rattles. Old cars are king, it all depends on the previous owner(s) what your ownership is like

 

[Tornado]

all the dynamics are like a car that's... 20 years old.

And the Camry has the dynamics of... a Camry!

 

[1X83Z]

And the Camry has the dynamics of... a Camry!

My dad's 98 Camry 2.2 had considerably better dynamics than my 96 850 Turbo, and that was the "performance" model. God only knows what the 240 is like.

And to those of you who both own a 240 (or any old Volvo) and are defending it in this thread, your fanboyism is impressive but simply put, you do not have the objective perspective to give solid advice. Only Keef and I do.

 

[Greycap]

God only knows what the 240 is like.

I think Patrik is God then. Wait, I'm too. Now this is getting confusing. But as I obviously am God I can as well tell that it has a lot better balance than the 850 and does not have the inherent understeer problems of the latter thanks to being RWD.

And to those of you who both own a 240 (or any old Volvo) and are defending it in this thread, your fanboyism is impressive but simply put, you do not have the objective perspective to give solid advice. Only Keef and I do.

So it's the same old thing all over again... saying positive things is fanboyism, saying negative things is objective perspective. Rrright. How about driving the 240 before judging our stand on it though? You have no idea about how it handles yet are sure that it's rubbish.

 

[YSSMAN]

I got the e-mail back form the guy this afternoon, but my brother is still waiting to hear from the insurance company for what should happen with the Camry. The Volvo has 180K on the clock, needs new shoes out back and probably new rotors up front.

My brother isn't in a big rush to get a car right away, but we do appreciate the feedback on the Volvo. I'll update when I hear more...

 

[eiriksmil]

An RWD Volvo with worn rear tires in a Michigan winter is way more fun than any Camry.

 

[Tornado]

My dad's 98 Camry 2.2 had considerably better dynamics than my 96 850 Turbo, and that was the "performance" model.

Dynamically speaking, the 850 Turbo was a torque steering pig; a car running twice as much horsepower as any of its suspension components were designed for. Meanwhile, people autocross 240s all the time, and they were raced professionally for nearly a decade.

And to those of you who both own a 240 (or any old Volvo) and are defending it in this thread, your fanboyism is impressive but simply put, you do not have the objective perspective to give solid advice.

Please. So far you've expressed an opinion based on your standards that somehow a Camry is worth its price more; then drew a conclusion that a 240 would be less fun to drive than a Camry because your previous car, a completely and totally unrelated Volvo, had the dynamics of a pedestrian FWD car with a big turbo slapped on.
It would be like me telling Heldenzeit in the thread he made a couple of months ago not to buy the Corvette he wanted because I once drove a Tahoe and it didn't handle very well at all. You could hardly be any more subjective if you were Poverty calling for him to buy an Audi.

 

[homeforsummer]

And to those of you who both own a 240 (or any old Volvo) and are defending it in this thread, your fanboyism is impressive but simply put, you do not have the objective perspective to give solid advice. Only Keef and I do.

I own neither and have driven neither, so I'm happy to continue with my subjective standpoint that the Camry is the automotive equivalent of the colour grey. Or maybe beige. Either way, the 240 is just a much more interesting car. And for a forum of car enthuisasts, that's sometimes all that matters. Regardless, going by the informed opinions of those here that own or have driven a 240, it's clear they have many other qualities too, not least the rather important one of reliability.

 

[1X83Z]

Please. So far you've expressed an opinion based on your standards that somehow a Camry is worth its price more; then drew a conclusion that a 240 would be less fun to drive than a Camry because your previous car, a completely and totally unrelated Volvo, had the dynamics of a pedestrian FWD car with a big turbo slapped on.

Huh? I never compared the 240 to my car. WTF??? You guys are so bad at logical arguments. Stick to cars. and cars only.


Annnnnnnnnyway, I'm right -- unquestionably. But we can be unobjective here and support the idea of trading in a 10yo Japanese car on a 20yo Swedish one. After all car enthusiasts can afford to be illogical -- why else would anyone buy BMWs??

 

[Slicks]

Perhaps... Just perhaps, he wants to take the money from the Crapry, buy something older and cheaper, and keep the rest of the money.

Though, for my money, I'd take the 240 every day of the week. Not because of how it drives (which is probably better than the Crapry), or how it looks (better than the crapry), but because it's got an impeccable reputation for reliability and ease of maintenence.

(And given how they were produced until 1993, it's potentially not much older than the Crapry in question).

 

[1X83Z]

Perhaps... Just perhaps, he wants to take the money from the Crapry, buy something older and cheaper, and keep the rest of the money.

Is the 240 cheaper? I bet they're pretty close.

Yum

 

[Slicks]

craigslist for Grand Rapids is showing, on average, a $1000 to $2000 difference in price between the Crapry and the 240. I refuse to use AutoTrader, as it requires me to know one of your stupid zip codes.

Also, 3rd Gen Crapry owners appear to be too embarrased to post pictures of their interiors. Probably because they know that the two tone beauty that is Volvo far outclasses them.

Edit -


Feel the bland.

 

[homeforsummer]

Huh? I never compared the 240 to my car. WTF??? You guys are so bad at logical arguments. Stick to cars. and cars only.

As far as I can see, there's been at least one model of car mentioned in the posts you're referring to. So they are sticking to cars.

Annnnnnnnnyway, I'm right -- unquestionably.

Modesty. How refreshing. Oh no, wait...

But we can be unobjective here and support the idea of trading in a 10yo Japanese car on a 20yo Swedish one. After all car enthusiasts can afford to be illogical -- why else would anyone buy BMWs??

You're either being sarcastic, or you managed to completely ignore what I wrote about the Volvo being subjectively the better car above. Either way it's a confusing comment.

 

[1X83Z]

craigslist for Grand Rapids is showing, on average, a $1000 to $2000 difference in price between the Crapry and the 240. I refuse to use AutoTrader, as it requires me to know one of your stupid zip codes.

OUR stupid zip codes?!?!? Yours are a hodgepodge of numbers and letters randomly arranged with no legitimate order!!! At least with a license plate they are (usually) grouped, like ABC 123. In Canada it's like A1B 2C3, or $N) 4N5. Yes with the closed parentheses and dollar sign... probably.

You're either being sarcastic, or you managed to completely ignore what I wrote about the Volvo being subjectively the better car above. Either way it's a confusing comment.

First of all I totally agree - the Volvo is definitely the SUBJECTIVELY better car - though certainly not the objectively better one. And of course I'm being sarcastic. I mean, objectively, I'm right, but since you guys have admitted to being illogical we might as well have some fun. I stand by my BMW comment though. Jesus those things are crap.

 

[Wolfe]

I refuse to use AutoTrader, as it requires me to know one of your stupid zip codes.

You couldn't even put in 90210?

 

[1X83Z]

You couldn't even put in 90210?

Classic.

 

[Tornado]

Huh? I never compared the 240 to my car. WTF??

My dad's 98 Camry 2.2 had considerably better dynamics than my 96 850 Turbo, and that was the "performance" model. God only knows what the 240 is like.

I rest my case.

First of all I totally agree - the Volvo is definitely the SUBJECTIVELY better car - though certainly not the objectively better one.

Interesting that you have failed to come up with a single objective reason for it, then.

 

[1X83Z]

I rest my case.

But... but... I've CLEARLY compared it to the CAMRY!!! Ugh!!!

Interesting that you have failed to come up with a single objective reason for it, then.

You can't imagine why the 10-year-newer Japanese car is better objectively? Honestly Toronado -- and be TOTALLY honest here -- do you HONESTLY think that a 1985 Volvo 240 is objectively a better car than a 1997 Toyota Camry? Objectively -- not whilst wearing your car enthusiast hat, if you can manage.

 

[JCE]

I think the Volvo is the better choice over the Camry. Why? These are MY reasons.

• Collectability 25yrs from now
• Its RWD
• Its cheap(er)
• More fun
• Not (as) generic
• Has more modifi-bility (new word)

For me its not 100% about reliability...its about the total package. What's more cooler, a tricked Volvo or a freaking Camry...honestly.

 

[Tornado]

But... but... I've CLEARLY compared it to the CAMRY!!! Ugh!!!

You said that your Volvo was worse dynamically than a Camry. Then you concluded that, based on how your Volvo was, that a 240 must be even worse.

You can't imagine why the 10-year-newer Japanese car is better objectively? Honestly Toronado -- and be TOTALLY honest here -- do you HONESTLY think that a 1985 Volvo 240 is objectively a better car than a 1997 Toyota Camry? Objectively -- not whilst wearing your car enthusiast hat, if you can manage.

There really aren't that many objective things to compare the two.
Reliability: A wash.
Resale value: A wash, if not a point for the Volvo.
Cost of ownership: A wash.
Essentially, from an objective point of view they are pretty much equal. So why would you get the Camry when it offers no objective advantages?

 

[1X83Z]

I think the Volvo is the better choice over the Camry. Why? These are MY reasons.

• Collectability 25yrs from now
• Its RWD
• Its cheap(er)
• More fun
• Not (as) generic
• Has more modifi-bility (new word)

For me its not 100% about reliability...its about the total package. What's more cooler, a tricked Volvo or a freaking Camry...honestly.

Nearly every one of these are completely subjective. More fun? Not generic? Collectible? Uh...

You have just two up there that have any legitimacy -- RWD (the OP lives in MICHIGAN by the way) and cheaper, which we've all agreed is debatable considering how much those old Volvos sell for.

There really aren't that many objective things to compare the two.
Reliability: A wash.
Resale value: A wash, if not a point for the Volvo.
Cost of ownership: A wash.
Essentially, from an objective point of view they are pretty much equal. So why would you get the Camry when it offers no objective advantages?

So you honestly objectively think the Volvo is the better car? Honestly & objectively?

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Sand or salt bags in the trunk of a RWD > FWD.

 

[1X83Z]

Sand or salt bags in the trunk of a RWD > FWD.

You don't even need salt bags. One of my buddies had a 244DL in HS... that car was so heavy and so damn underpowered that he never had any troubles, and our winters are just as bad as in Michigan.

 

[Patrik]

This thread has become stupid...

Greetings from a happy Volvo 240 owner!

 

[HACKr]

I was talking to a guy over MSN about this, and he said "It's a ****ing VOLVO, It should sell itself," after saying that the Camry is boring and all too common.

I'm completely for the Volvo...