Whether to Put More Money Into My 240
Asked by cls67 Nov 05, 2019 at 04:20 PM about the 1992 Volvo 240 GL
Question type: Maintenance & Repair
I have a 92 240gl w/ 215k miles. I did the regular maintenance on it until
about 2011 and it has been parked since then. I know it is bad to just let it
sit. I recently put a battery in it to see if it would start and it did. My son
needs a car for college. I am guessing that getting the car ready for
everyday driving, valves, hoses, brakes, etc will cost a bit and it has various
odds and ends that need addressing. I am guessing that after all that is
addressed, the money required will only be a few thousand shy of getting say
a Civic w/ 90-115k miles. The Volvo is likely safer. I am not sure which will
end up lasting longer or costing me less in ongoing repairs and maintenance.
Anyone have any insights? Thanks in advance.
7 Answers
Just my thoughts, A Civic will actually be safer than an older Volvo, since it probably will have ABS and airbags. The Volvo's were a safe car in it's day, but it's a 27 year old car. I would drain the gasoline before I would start it again, if you had it sitting in the tank for 8 years. It would also come down to if your son likes driving the Volvo and working on cars. At college he might have to get under the hood a few times to keep it running.
Yes we would drain the gas and address the pumps as well as many other jobs to make it road worthy if we decide to stick with it. Actually the 92 has ABS and airbags and is not made out of the cheaper materials modern cars are made out of. The main issue besides safety is whether I will shell out more over the years for a 92 240 with 215k miles or a Civic from the 2006-2011 range with 85-115k miles. The Civic might cost a few thousand more up front. Not sure which will last longer and which will be more expensive to maintain/repair.
I now remember driving it 60 miles in 2014. I know the 5 year old gas is bad.
It needed so much work I decided not to put any money in it. Purchased an 07 Corolla w/ 63k miles for $5300. I think the upfront costs and the ongoing repairs and maintenance will all be lower than trying to resurrect the 92 Volvo. Sitting outside under a car cover undriven for 5 years (2014-2019) and driven very little for a few years before that (2011-2014) really takes a toll on a car.
I compared the repair and maintenance bills on my Volvo with the bills for the same mileage range on my 2014 Camry Hybrid and I was paying a lot more on my Volvo (even in 96-06) than I have been paying on my Camry (2014-2019).
The Volvo is an APPRECIATING asset. The Toyota is a depreciating asset. Resurrecting the 240 is simple. Everything needing to be done is easily accomplished up to and including the ti.ing belt. The Toyota will be bulletproof I til it breaks and that can get expensive in one Hell of a hurry. For me, a car with an airbag is a no go for me according to my vascular surgeon, so that makes driving my 1990 240DL Wagon an easy decision. It only has 390,000 miles on the clock so is good for years.
