(Lack of) appeal of older Volvos (240)

My '86 Civic Si - and that '84-'87 series of Civics - is a nightmare to work on, but I haven't had to do much. After doing a couple of oil changes, and spilling oil because the filter is *behind* the engine, I let Valvoline or a dealer do it - while I watch. The 240 is much easier, access-wise, but I just prefer a car that doesn't need that easy access. ;)

Depending where it is, a US gallon is about 1.2 IMP gallons. So 1 car which does 25mp(US)g would only do about 20mp(Imp)g... in Australia or UK for instance.

I think the conversion is backward on that. 1 US gallon is 3.7854 L while 1 Imperial gallon is 4.546 L.

Mike

My daughter's Accord is the same way, and I always shield the exhaust pipe (which runs directly under the oil filter) with aluminum foil. The oil filter on our '85 765T is worse - I have to move the power steering pump out of the way to change it. I understand there is a dog-leg version of the turbo oil drain tube that allows the filter to be removed - but there is still no way to get a wrench on the filter. I almost always dump most of the oil out of the filter trying to get it out.

Mike

You mean... not everything is bigger in America?

Only in Texas ;-)

Mike

I don't know about that.

I'd take an old, high quality item over a new not-so-high-quality item any day.

As it happens I needed the assistance of my neighbour recently to pump my brake pedal for me while I bled the lines on my 1985 245.

He owns a newish Chrysler product and he just bought a new Hyundai SUV for his wife to replace her Mazda MPV whose engine has been sounding like a cement mixer full of Blue Box contents and has been haemorrhaging fluids onto their driveway.

In any case, he was somewhat struck with awe at the fact that (1) the engine in the 245 fired up and ran as smoothly as it did after having sat idle for over a month and (2) the solidity and general overall good condition of a vehicle that has attained "antique" status in the view of the Ministry of Transportation.

One of his sons will be getting his drivers' license in a few months and he wondered if I'd consider selling him the 245 so that he would have less to worry about when it came to the saftey of his son on wheels.

"No way!" I told him. I'd sell him my Camry wagon before I'd part with the 245. And I said that I'd give him my Suzuki Samurai for free.

............

................ Not newish. New. After a couple of years it ain't new any more, how many cars give grief in the first 2-3 years? Of course the statement doesn't consider resale value or anything other than what's the best to have right now. Many ppl only keep them 3 years - not my practice (I do the exact opposite) but there's usually not much wrong with the car they currently have.

Some slack-jawed yokel rear-ended my 91 245 yesterday...he was looking at traffic, and not the car in front of him.. We got out, looked at the front end damage on his car (minor, but evident) and the lack of same on the back of mine...I thought about getting some time at the chiropractor from his insurance carrier, but decided to drive on unharmed instead.

I'm glad I wasn't driving any of my other cars - including the 01 V70. I don't think I would have fared as well...

CL

>

Ppl assume volvos were safer because they are made of thicker sheet metal. I'm sure they are better designed than most cars but I believe the other is either a myth for those who can't tell the difference, or the impresion of weight given by the appearance... but as I say it works during that critical pre-collision stage.

"jg" wrote in news:UstRe.18471$ snipped-for-privacy@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

Ya I wonder how an old volvo would compare with a new car in collision testing?

New cars here are now registered on a points system for safety features, so a car with say airbags standard probably needed them to rate because they lacked some other feature to gain enough points. Many newer cars collapse easily, which is good for reducing injuries but not so good for the car. Seems to me volvos (specially older ones) only collapse in major prangs so you might still drive away from minor ones.

Taurus is probably the closest approximation, though not remotely similar looking.

How much preventative maintenance could you have done on an older car for half the money saved by buying it over a new one? I know plenty of people with new cars that have various problems, I found it ironic that my old roommate bought a brand new truck and it spent more time in the shop than I spent tinkering with my 15 year old car that had nearly 250K on it at the time.

Most people don't do it, in fact I don't know anyone offhand who has, but if you dump $5K into fixing up a $3K car the end result can be a very nice vehicle, much better than anything one could buy for even $12K new.

Try it on a 240 Turbo, I love that car but dang...

You took the words right out of my mouth, er hands

Happens all the time on the road, generally the new cars crumple, both do a decent job of protecting the occupants in many cases but the 240 is much more likely to drive away.

Hey no need to tell me, I have never owned a new car and just threw away a

17 year old for a 25 yr old volvo. All up a new car is probably a really bad buy, (although I still have no money to show for all that). But it still holds: choose between a new and an old car with no other consideration at all... you still want the old one? Of course as the new one ages, it's not new any more and consequently doesn't fit the bill.

The Taurus (AKA torn arse) was briefly sold here alongside the Falcon in an attempt to see if buyers would buy an incredibly ugly FWD instead of the more moderately styled RWD Falcon. They didn't sell many...