To Keep, or Not to Keep?

Well keep in mind you're asking a Volvo group, but I would keep the 940 over all other choices personally, no question about it. 137K is low mileage, those motors are well known to go 300 or 400K. It's old enough that parts are cheap and easy to come by so it can be kept on the road very cheaply. Accidents aside, I would put money on the 940 outlasting the Mercury, likely by quite a wide margin.

Next choice would be the V70, good solid car, not quite as bulletproof or as easy to work on as the 940 but not bad either and again should be good for 250-300K with decent maintenance. Big, roomy, safe, yet nimble. Should have good resale value, even 10 years from now.

As for the Mercury, yuck, huge clunky inneficient 1950s tech pushrod V8, big lumbering grandpa car, pathetic resale value once it hits about 100K miles, I'd be shocked if it's still on the road by 200K. All those bells & whistles are a whole lot of things to go wrong. I swore off domestic cars years ago though I still get suckered into working on one once in a while, no thanks.

[ ... ]

If you experience frequent winter storms that require a 4WD vehicle, keep the V70 XC. Otherwise, keep the 940.

Gary

The XC is probably going to be the most costly of the three to keep going. That vintage of Volvo all wheel drive cars, IMO, isn't nearly as trouble free as the well sorted '93 940 or the Grand Marquis. The Grand Marquis in Crown Victoria taxi form goes many hundreds of thousands of brutal miles.

Is the 940 a wagon? If not, that might tilt the scales towards keeping the V70 simply because there are times when a station wagon is very, very handy to have. Our oldest car is a '93 240 wagon, and it does some kind of hauling duty at least a few times per month. Most recently it brought home the panels with which I will make a new set of iron railings for the front steps and the Ikea desk which will soon be serving as homework central.

"Robert" wrote in news:1170817191.194091.287160 @p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:

What's its CO2 output?

E.

The 940 is indeed a sedan. That's one of the problems with getting rid of the V70...we love the convience of having a wagon for long trips.

Greenhouse gas emmissions are probably somewhere between 10 and 11 tons per year, according to fueleconomy.gov. For the regular 4.6 litre Mercury engine it would be about 9.2 tons per year. But it gets the same gas mileage as my 1993 940, so I'm not too terribly concerned about much else environmentally.

Greenhouse gas emmissions are probably somewhere between 10 and 11 tons per year, according to fueleconomy.gov. For the regular 4.6 litre Mercury engine it would be about 9.2 tons per year. But it gets the same gas mileage as my 1993 940, so I'm not too terribly concerned about much else environmentally.

"Robert" wrote in news:1170848975.757776.309040 @h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Tell that to the next generation.

E.

WEll he said they get about the same mileage, so between the two in that respect he shouldn't be too terribly concerned unless it makes a difference.

James Sweet wrote in news:9vvyh.2701$da1.1186@trndny03:

I'd expect a 5 litre engine to pump out more CO2 and really we should'nt be driving such cars now.

E.

The amount of CO2 output is directly, 100% related to how much fuel you burn. So same mileage = same CO2 output.

One part carbon, two parts oxygen. ;-)

I feel that burning fossil fuels is perhaps the only thing of lasting value humans have ever done for Planet Earth. Since life first appeared, organisms have collected carbon and taken it underground with them when they died. Surface carbon has been progressively depleted for eons, and although we can only restore a tiny fraction of it (the vast majority of fossil carbon is in the form of sedimentary carbonates) we should do what we can.

Mike

Well...while we're on the topic...

I really don't care too much about the environment, basically just my bottom line. Call me blind, I don't care, but as long as they get equal gas mileage that's the only thing that DIRECTLY affects how much money I'm spending, environmentally speaking. Yes, I do buy only Energy Star appliances, etc., but that's just because they're cheaper to run. This is pretty much the way that America is -- if hybrid/ electric cars had the same initial cost and insane rebates that the gas guzzlers that Detroit is pumping out have, I'm sure we'd all be in them for our next car. But when you're asking us to part with our money, our profit, just so we can say that the air doesn't get one degree warmer? It just isn't economically practical to me.

As far as I'm concerned, selling the Volvo V70XC nets us about a $9,000 dollar profit. Selling the Mercury nets a $4,000 dollar profit, and selling the Volvo 940 would be a $3,000 dollar profit. Plus the Mercury and the 940 aren't anywhere near as expensive as the V70 in terms of repair; they all get about equal gas mileage (slight differences of 1-2 miles per gallon don't matter much to me) and I like them all.

We still haven't registered the Merc so it's all still up in the air, but if I had to decide which one should go it would definitely be the V70XC. Economically speaking, it seems to be the best option.

I havn't much experience of the XC but 850 / V70s in the UK have not lasted anywhere near aswell as 940s.

940s are solid inside and out, after 10 years they can still look new (bar accident damage and fashion). They are galvanised and will not rust (mostly). And still after abusive owners. This is the last well (over?) engineered Volvo. This is what people need. 850s, on the other hand, look the same as Fords do after 5 years, paint is faded they have started to rust and bits are breaking off the inside, winder mechanisms breaking, major engine faults, suspension gets tired very quickly. Only cars cared for and used with kid gloves really last well. This is what people want and is more profitable for car makers.

Volvo having built up a name for reliability is now supplying cars the same as everyone else and divesting the brand, with a much lower intended lifetime. Although they are more refined, quieter and lighter.

-- Tony

OK...so far, between this group and the Ford group, I have five votes for getting rid of the V70XC, two votes for getting rid of the Mercury, and no votes for getting rid of the 940. Keep them coming in, I'll post as soon as we make a decision!

Thanks guys for all the support and guidance.

As would I, but if the fuel economy is the same, the CO2 is the same.

Here's the latest update:

We've decided to take the Mercury and sell the V70XC (thanks for all the advice, guys). We're getting it titled tomorrow, and taking the V70XC to CarMax sometime soon...I'll update with whatever we get for it. We're looking for something in the $7,000-8,000 range -- we paid $9,000 for the car a little less than two years ago, and we've only put on 6,000 miles, so it seems pretty reasonable.

Look for an update soon!

OK, long-due update 2:

CarMax offered us only $2500...apparently, and I quote, "AWD Volvos aren't currently in demand." This is the day after we have about half a foot of snow. Oh well.

So now we're going to attempt to sell it private-party ourselves. Anyone interested? We're looking in the $7500+ range.