More Typical Very Old Car Experience

There comes a certain point when a car is just not worth keeping, and that's usually something we don't often experience here, rust. If a car is a rust bucket it'll never be nice again. If you take good care of a car it's possible to keep it not only running nice but looking nice virtually indefinitly.

Volvo seemed to get the rust problem cracked with the 740. My 16 year old has spent the last five years living out in the street in all that the British weather has to offer. The only rust I had to have patched, when I bought it, was underneath behind the rear bumper, adjacent to the spare wheel well.

Every year or so I go underneath with a big can of Waxoyl and the bodywork gets hard waxed a couple of times a year. It's enough to keep it pretty well immaculate.

I think the author of that article is a blathering idiot. I've known lot's of nice older cars that didn't require a fleet of attendants and weren't held together with bailing wire and duct tape. I owned one myself, a 1974 Volvo 142GL (for Grand Lux) I believe. It drove like a dream and was 100% reliable for the two years I owned it. It didn't burn oil and it got fantastic fuel economy, had solid doors and a great heater/defroster. Everything worked fine except the heated seats which most cars don't have anyway and the clock which wasn't particularly troubling since I wear a watch anyway.

Certainly there comes a time in every cars life when it's time for retirement but that point does not come just because a car is 20 years old or has 150,000 miles on the clock.

Don't you know you should NOT believe everything you read in the newspapers...

I have a '93 240 and it looks and rides like new. Any (pre-Ford) Volvo that is well maintained will last 20-30 years. The problem is most people are not "strong" thinkers and easily influenced. So when the neighbor buy a new car, it itches to do the same soon after.

Additional benefits of keeping older cars are very low insurance costs, less interest in car-jacking as well as theft. Plus driving something that is rare to find is always a pleasure. Not to mention that you never get rich by spending.

Moreover, they d>Too frequently you hear here and elsewhere about the 15-20 year old Volvo or

I'm laughing out loud! My 2000 S80 will easily still be on the road in 2020 if it's not involved in an accident. You don't know what you are talking about. Older cars were not built with paint and under-coating this durable. And I've only been to the dealer for it's scheduled services every 7500 miles.

I was agreeing with you up until this point. Modern materials and design techniques will ensure that today's cars last a lot longer, get better mileage, pollute less and offer greater crash protection than cars built a couple of decades ago.

I can think of quite a few problems I and my family had with our cars as I was growing up in the 70's and 80's. Rust was by far the biggest one, and that has been pretty much licked. Why else would manufacturers be offering such lengthy warranties against body rust? My favorite nasty was the carburator, which caused no end of woes and could never really be fixed properly, and the host of crap that came around it.

If what you were saying were true, manufacturers wouldn't be offering

5/50k warranties (or even 10/100k powertrain warranties). That would have been suicide in the 80's. No, today's cars can and do last...you just have to choose wisely.

Cheers,

-+JLS

Depends on who you talk to. A new car is built every bit as well as something made 20 years ago, tho they give the appearance of perhaps less solidity, due to their styling, and the fact that they crumple in accidents instead of keeping shape (crumpling is better for occupants, staying in shape is better for the car, what is more important?). The new Volvo's are QUITE well made, they just have a LOT more technology in them that can break down.... I'm sure back in the day there were certain cars no one would think would last 20 years, and did.... What did people say of the 240, top of the line versions when they were introduced?

Not taking great exception with your other points, but I should point out that Chrysler had a 5/50k warranty in the 1981 model year. This was partly a matter of statistical analysis and consistent quality control, partly a great sales pitch, and partly because the company desparately had to sell cars to generate capital (having been recently baled out of bankruptcy at public expense). The first part about statistics turned out to be true, many of the famous "K-cars" had their midlife crises just out of warranty. The quality control was on target, and the statistics turned out to be fairly accurate. One doesn't necessarily have a great product to turn a profit in business...

The New York Times...there's a bunch of real car enthusiasts.

What a crock...

Despite my complaints about other problems, I have almost no rust on my 1996

850R. However -- and it's a very significant however -- I have a 1994 Jeep Cherokee that I drive when there's snow/slush/ice/salt on the streets in the winter. So the 850R has essentially never seen salt and should be rustless like a sunbelt car.

I'm also surprised at the "they don't make ____ like they used to" crowd.

I wish I still had my Atari 400. They don't make computers like they used to...

Really? I believe everything I read in the newspapers just like I believe everything I read on, say, newgroups.....

No. It's because new cars are better performers. When I bought my 850R in

1996 the sticker was $40k (in 1996 dollars) and it produced 240HP and was the fastest four door sedan beside the 540i and the Mercedes AMG C36 which cost over $50k (no 4-door M3 yet at the time).

Now, your homely $20k Accord produces 240HP and there are at least 6-10 four door sedans under $35k (about $28,000 in 1996 dollars at only 3% a year inflation, or about 30% less than the 850R) that can crush a stock 850R in performance. It's a great time to be alive if you are a car freak.

Yes, some lemmings buy just because their neighbors bought. But let's not pretend that there are not *massive* improvements in cars over just the past

7-8 years because there are.

Those are legitimate reasons.

ROFLMAO.

The idea that a car from, say, 1984 will last longer than the same priced car from 2004 with the same amount of maintenance and repairs is quite simply insane. Enough said.

Not sure what you are laughing at...

Here's one example. You 2000 S80 is using very thin metal sheet for the exterior of the car. This results in the car denting very easily. It has been reported by owners of S40, S60 , S80, etc. . Plus the new "ecological" paint deteriorates much more easily.

A dented car is a lot less attractive and costs a few $$$$ to bring it back to a "new" shape. My 2 Volvos, '93 and '98 don't suffer from such problem.

Moreover, changing the computer(s) on today's car like the S80 will be a great deal more expensive than on a 15 year old car. There are many examples of what I said in my previous post.

Bottom line is that nowadays, it is a bad business practice to build a product that last "too" long.

P.S. My mom's previous Maytag washer lasted 31 years with little maintenance except for the pump once and the pipes twice. Her new top of the line Maytag (Calypso) purchased last year has already needed to service call. First to change the rubber seal around the tub and second to change the sophisticated computer.

P.P.S. Buy the Kenmore Elite HE3Tinstead, much better and more reliable ~ $1,300US. I have one.

One more thing I just remembered...

The S80 MY2000 had a "slight problem". Both front air bags would deploy in a 3-5 MPH frontal collision. An indep research group made the discovery. Volvo at first denied it. But after further testing, found out it was true.

Volvo implemented a solution midway through MY2000 production. But did not order a recall. You may want to check with your dealer whether your S80 has the sensitive air bags or not. Apart from the $$$$ you will have to spend to replace the 2 front air bags, people sometimes suffer injuries from air bag deployment. In particular since this kind of collision often happens in parking lot when people are not belted and are sitting closer to the air bag.

Just the facts, noth>> Moreover, they don't built cars the way they used to. You'll be hard

Patrick, I don't consider that thinner body panels make the car any less short-lived. This is not done to save money but to make the car perform better and get better fuel economy. My S80 has a hood and trunk lid made of aluminum for the same reason. This helps reduce weight and lower the center of gravity for better handling. But it costs quite a bit more than even a thick steel hood/trunk. In 1980 only very expensive and exotic sports cars used any aluminum body panels. Expensive? Yes. As strong? No, but strong enough to do the job. Would I walk on my hood? Of course not. Does that mean it's not built as well? No, it's actually built better.

I've had my car four years and over 50,000 miles now and it has one dent that you can only see if the lighting is perfect and the angle is correct. If I make it 16 years and over 200,000 miles and have four such dents I will be very pleased. Personally, I think the lighter skins improve the qualities of the car, not cheapen it. My S80 has a chassis that is far more rigid than any comparable sedan in the 1980's, Volvo's included. This makes it much more sure-footed during evasive manuevers.

My S80 has 18 separate computers in it. So far I've replaced zero. Computers are getting cheaper all the time. I don't buy your argument that computers make a car prohibitively expensive to keep in service.

I made the mistake of buying a Maytag Neptune washer/dryer set. I won't buy another Maytag as long as I live. It's bad business to design a product to fail early. I will buy plenty more Volvo's because they continue to serve me well and be reliable. I don't buy your theory that "nowadays" it's bad business practice to build a product that lasts too long.

See, you're proving my point. You are singing the praises of the more reliable machine. That's good business for Kenmore. Cars are the same way, people love to talk about their cars with family/friends/co-workers. If someone has a lemon, you will hear about it. I buy European cars because I've seen my friends domestic cars fall apart before my eyes and heard their tales of woe. It's not good business to design a major purchase to fail early, you are so far out in right field it's ridiculous.

You are making my point for me. Cars 20 years ago didn't have airbags. Modern cars are a lot safer.

The thing you fail to mention with the "overly sensitive" front airbags in the S80 is the following:

The S80 is one of the few cars that has two sensitivities to the airbags. If the seatbelt is buckled, the airbag will not deploy at 5 mph. And the seatbelt will not deploy at 5 mph if it hits another car, only if it hits a large stationary object. Yes, this is a little too sensitive and Volvo detuned the airbags in later models which, is one more example of cars being made better as time marches on.

Those who claim older cars are 'better" are generally the people who can't afford new ones as often as they would like.

You're right, they don't, the 400 is quite a classic, though not nearly as much as some. Not too long ago I saw an Apple Lisa fetch over $4000, you could buy a hell of a new machine for that. Some of the old S100 bus microcomputers will get quite a bit of $ too. Most of the mid 80's-90's computer stuff is pretty worthless though.

It's kinda hard to compare consumer electronics and appliances with cars, they've all become so disposeable it's ridiculous, I'm not one of those hardcore buy american types, but I like to at least buy products that were manufactured in countries that provide a similar quality of life to my own, something that's becoming increasingly difficult to do. If the car market went the same way as the electronics and appliance market everyone would be driving a Kia or a Daewoo by now, and all the famous marques would be made by them as well and rebadged.

There's advantages to newer and older cars, and it's mostly a matter of preference. I could just about go pay cash for a new Volvo right now, but I'm pretty happy with the ones I have, they meet my needs, both current and for the forseeable future, there's simply other things I'd prefer to budget for rather than being a typical american up to my eyeballs in debt with a house full of fancy new stuff. It'd be nice if people would quit arguing about what cars are "better" and just focus on enjoying the car of their choice. If you like all the new bells & whistles and don't mind paying someone to work on it when something breaks then go for it, others will always prefer something a bit simpler with less to go wrong and the things that do are better documented. My personal liking is for the 700/900 series because I feel it's a very good compromise between simplicity, styling and creature comforts. I still occasionally have an itch for a nice 850R wagon but not enough to get rid of the two cars I already have, I feel rather attached to them.