You're out of touch. The 1992 240 I just got on eBay was $3300 (not counting the $200 I'm spending to fly out to pick it up), and it's in immaculate condition. There are lots of great 240s to be found for under $5000 for anyone who has the intelligence and patience to do the search.
But that's not the point, if a person already has a car they like, a lot can be done to make it nice again. Could probably fix nearly everything for far less than $5k, but it'd certainly be easy to spend more than that for a top notch restoration. All new bushings, shocks, brakes, tires, paint, upholstery, etc, do all that and you have a car that you *know* is in good shape, better IMO than taking a gamble on one that *looks* to be in good shape. I know there's lots of reasonably priced 240's out there but that's not the point.
It is kind of the point. It's better to trade up now, while the old car still has some trade in/retail value. And if I'd had your attitude about not taking a chance on a new car, I never would have gotten the last two really fabulous cars I bought through eBay. Hell, given your reasoning, no one would ever buy a new car if they already had one that ran reliably.
Yes. You might get extremely lucky and find a good one on ebay, but the chances of finding a good one, at a good price, from a dealer, in the northeast "rust belt", are very slim. Look on cars.com to see what the better ones can bring. Immaculate ones bring top dollar, not auction price. You will get what you pay for. Cars being dumped will have problems. Dealers may be sleazy, but they're not stupid.
I hate to be repititious, but I just bought my *third* 240 wagon, through eBay, from "the northeast "rust belt" -- two in New Jersey, one in Connecticut/New York. Each of these cars was terrific, each as good as or better than advertised. One was from a private seller, two from dealers. You can't be suggesting that I just happened to get "extremely lucky" three times in a row?
Hmmmmmmmm??? You would help prospective purchasers much more if you would honestly describe past experiences. Was the "terrific '87 from the private seller or dealer"? From your old posts....
"Of course there's a risk to buying a car in another state without first driving it but, quite frankly, I bought my last two used cars locally and drove them first and still got royally screwed. So, after much agonizing and angst, I finally decided that $2000 (which includes my airfare out there) is an acceptable risk . If it were a $5000 or $10,000 car, no; but $2000 seems like a reasonable risk. .... I had an '83 wagon that I actually did wreck, during a misadventure on the south side of Chicago, as night fell. Very scary. I replaced it with the '87 wagon I'm driving now, which has served me well for a year. But it was fairly well worn out when I bought it, more so than I even realized. I just got around to taking it in for a used car inspection yesterday. Prognosis: An excellent car to donate to Volunteers of America. So now I'm in the market to replace it with a car that will last me for many years to come (assuming I stay away from the south side of Chicago at night)." ..............
I did honestly describe my past experiences. The '87 was from a private seller and was exactly as described. The seller was a really nice guy who took the time over the next two years to periodically check with me via email to see how the car was serving me. I got far more than my money's worth out of is car before moving up to my '89. Again, I've had three very good experiences buying
240s on eBay.
My dad bought a 240 Turbo on ebay and the experience was good, but then this was an $800 car and was expected to be a bit of a project.
I don't think there's anything wrong with ebay, it can be a fine place to find cars, just that if a person is looking to replace a Volvo with a similar model needing less work it might just be easier to fix the existing one rather than replace it. That's just me though, I don't like to get rid of anything if I can still use it, I know too many people who throw away their money constantly buying and selling things rather than sticking with something that works.
I just had a look at the archives to see what the consensus was on this question but it appears that the thread took off on a tangent.
A low-mileage(~170k km) '92 960 wagon recently came up on Ebay motors that looked to be in pretty good shape.
I had a quick look at the JD Power ratings at the Edmunds.com site and it appears that the '92 960 was rated as being somewhat mediocre in the long-term reliability ratings but the '93 appeared to be one of the best for all Volvos.
I'm wondering if people on this group have found this to be the case ? (ie '93 960 being *the* best Volvo new or used in terms of long-term reliability. )
I ask because JD Power rated Buicks with the 3.8 litre engine pretty highly too but a number of people I have quizzed about them have talked about premature engine failure, poor build quality, etc., all the things you would expect from an American auto.
Based on my experience of eleven volvo estates over the years, all of which did over 200,00 miles and one 448,000 I think I am in a position to give an opinion. Out of the 240 range I would go for '89 245GL; of the 740's, '89 740 GLT; and 900's the '95 Wentworth 2.0T. Probably, out of them all, the '89 740 GLT has the better build and reliability track record. The 16 valve 2.3L engine is excellent for torque, reliability and smoothness although not particularly quick off the line perfect for motorway cruising and towing. The 2.0 turbo engine is lively and reasonably economical, probably one of the most reliable and resilient turbo's I've come across and that includes the Merc Kompressors. The 240 series are strong robust vehicles but certain years do suffer from rust.
900's on the other hand are very refined, a little fragile in places, suffer from numerous electronic reliability issues, but all are very quick off the mark, hold the road well without wallowing and eat the miles with ease. I have never owned an 850 or any of the late or smaller models, although I have many friends that do. Amongst them they don't rate the 850 very highly due to the vastly reduced cargo space, high cost of ownership and reliability issues, but they are exceptionally nice to drive. No one I know ever liked the 300 series and the 400's had some excellent models such as the 480 GLT.So! It really depends on what you're yard stick is and what you want the car for. I hope this has helped.
Definitely not the best ever. The 940s are considered better used cars than the 960s. The best 940s were the '94 and '95.
As a model, the 850/V70 were the best run of a model. Two notable exceptions were the '93 & '94 850 in which the transmission was getting bugs worked out, and the '98 and '01 where some changes were made and they weren't all for the best.
We've had our 1993 960 wagon since new and it's been the best car we've ever had.
No turbo to fail on it, 6 cylinder - inline, nice leather interior with velvet headliner and pillar liners, SIPS, dual airbags, good ABS brakes, excellent highway fuel range (8.9-10L per 100kms highway, 11-14L per 100kms city... drinks gas in the winter in city driving... maybe a bit more then
14L on some tanks on the coldest weeks)
Reliability ratings can and often are misleading, they just don't take into account for or provide enough information.
The 960's overall are good cars, though anything that old will be somewhat hit or miss. The overall design is solid but a lot is riding on how well it was looked after by the previous owner(s).
A customer of mine has a 96 V90 3l 24v with currently 280k miles on it, in not bad shape, but its beginning to cost more to run now, things like crank oil seals front and rear, waterpump, alternator bearings, radiator leaking, door hinges saging, the occasional coil pack failures (well documented) and the auto box is getting abit tired now despite regular fluid changes, but not slipping yet!
I'd still stick with the 4 cyl turbo 940's though.
Tim.
Anecdotal information on one or two vehicles is much worse. Reliability ratings and satisfaction ratings are real world numbers reported by real people, a lot of real world people. They are what they are. They don't make gold out of lemons. They don't make lemons out of gold. They are a tool indicating the typical result. As time goes on, both ratings get much more accurate since they reflect the long term satisfaction and reliability and not early sample defects which are covered under warranty and no concern to the used car buyer.
i like my 1993 940t...it has 240,000 miles on it and runs like a champ...the turbo moves this light, 4door sedan right along...
the 940's seem (to me) to drive and feel great .. even after 100,000 miles on the clock.......good value for the $$ imho...
Everything you mentioned could go wrong with the turbo 4, at roughly the same kilometerage, no? I mean, it's all age/wear related items that engines all have.
"pighash" wrote: > "James Sweet" wrote: > > > Reliability ratings can and often are misleading, they just > don't take into > > account for or provide enough information. > > Anecdotal information on one or two vehicles is much worse. > Reliability > ratings and satisfaction ratings are real world numbers > reported by real > people, a lot of real world people. They are what they are. > They don't > make gold out of lemons. They don't make lemons out of gold. > They are > a tool indicating the typical result. As time goes on, both > ratings get > much more accurate since they reflect the long term > satisfaction and > reliability and not early sample defects which are covered > under > warranty and no concern to the used car buyer. > -- > Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA > Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '02 Volvos. > The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '02 through European Delivery. >
last time i checked, one can swap out a used & working turbo for a 940t foe around $200...if you want brand new, or "modded & built up" one can spend up to $1,000.....or more....(this includes labor)...
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.