Volvo repair costs?

Unless you are mechanically inclined with a small budget for parts, I'd say go with the 91 Wagon or the Japanese car.

Maybe your Wagon will be one that was maintained well. If it's just 4 years, the Volvo will be safer. For 3 thousand dollars, it's going to be an older Japanese car with high miles.

Toss up. Go with the Volvo. I am a huge fan of Honda and Toyota, so I am not biased. Give the Volvo a shot and if things go south, sell him.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I think parts will be about the same. If the Volvo wagon (either year) is a non turbo stick 240 you have an almost bulletproof car. And with a little research on the Brickboard and basic tools can do lots of the work on it yourself. If I could find a 1991 stick 240 wagon ( It is called a 245 if you are a volvo nut) for $3000 I would snatch it up. All things being equal I would favor the stick over the auto and the non turbo over the turbo for simplicity and dependablility. Engine and drivetrain should be good for about 300K miles on the B230 volvo engine.

Best of Luck Howard

If you have the Volvo fixed at the Volvo dealer, then yes. Expensive would be the word. But the 240 is a simple car, most any competent mechanic can fix it. I have mine worked on at the neighborhood garage and it costs no more than my Ford did.

I would definitely go with the 91 wagon over the 88. And I would personally pick the Volvos over the Toyota, although no guarantee that's a rational viewpoint. I'm 6'4" and the Volvos fit me better than Japanese cars do.

The Volvo will probably cost a bit more to have maintained, but if you can do the work yourself it will be easier to work on and it will be a much more luxurious and safer car.

Condition is everything. In either case you would want a thoroughly maintained vehicle.

The wagon will be much more flexible than a Celica. Say you find a great chair at a garage sale which will go perfectly in your dorm room or apartment. With the wagon you are good to go, but with the Celica not so.

Also, safety wise the Volvo of that vintage is far better than the Celica. Today the Japanese cars mostly have gotten on the safety engineering bandwagon, but in the 80s that wasn't true.

Parts wise the two are probably similar. Volvos of that era have pretty good aftermarket parts support, which is the key to low parts prices (even for dealer parts).

John

If both were serviced about equally well, the Celica will be the better bet - unless it's been abused. Both cars have similar longevity, but Toyotas tend to require less maintainance overall. Volvos are tough and long-lived, but it would be a mistake to think that they need little TLC to keep them going. The only advantage the Volvo would have would be a design that's easier to work on yourself, if you have the basic skills.

(...)

Actually, the Celica is one of the few safe sports cars around - with the exception of the base notchback model, it's a lot like a more evolved P1800, with FWD after about '86. And it's worth noting that he's talking about a '90's Celica, not an '80's model, although the late '80's Celica GT and GTS were quite substantial cars.

I once used an '88 GTS to move a whole twin bed.

I'll chime in with an earlier post -- the room the wagon has. For 3 grand, I don't think you're going to be cruising chicks in the Celica, but with the wagon you can pile in the people, ice chests, beer, soda, whatever -- plus the camping stuff or whatever you need to make a road trip.

I don't know if Volvo ever made a "Shagging Wagon" but who's to say there can't be one?

;-)

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I have two Volvo wagons 88 and 89 Turbo with about the same mileage. As long as you can turn a wrench and make sure the timing belt (must be done every 50k or could ruin your engine) and in tank fuel pump (about $500.00) has been changed in the last couple of years it should be ok.

Jamie wrote:

The timing belt won't ruin the engine unless you have a 16V (or any of the 5 or 6 cylinder engines) but it will leave you stranded if it breaks. The turbo engines in particular have dished pistons so there's quite a lot of clearance.

$ US 500.00 Dollars to do the in tank pump for that you could do both the main and the intank pump and labour here as our AU Dollar equals only 74.5 cents to your Dollar .So thats about $AU 650.00 boy we do have it good here .Check with your local Volvo car club you can only win . BTW make sure they put the Turbo pre pump in its different .Same with the main pump ,they will work but not as well .Here down under it cost me $AU 100.00 for the cambelt fitted or $US 75.00 labour included .

That was not even at a Volvo Dealership. Volvo Dealerships want really big money to maintian your vehicles due to the failure of the New Car Department to do better than break even over the last couple of years. This year they were taking $10,000 US of the S-80 and could not sell them.

While I was in the process of attempting to negotiate for a 2001 C-7

0 the salesman said "we make all our money on used cars and service". I could not get them to go any where near what I thought was reasonable (last time I looked the car was still there two months later) .

I have joined the Volvo club and they get a 10% discount off outrageous. So I go to Napa or IPDUSA.com for more reasonable prices and do the labor myself.

What does an average house go for in Australia. California is $400,000. It kills you to make a house payment.

Greg

John Roberts> $ US 500.00 Dollars to do the in tank pump for that you could do both the