Hey guys. Right now I own a 1990 325iS - it's my baby - but being that it's in overall great condition but needs to catch up on some maintenance deferred by the PO, I'm debating buying a second car to use as a DD for to daily commute of about 75 miles round trip.

Obviously, the first type of car that comes to mind is some little Honda, and of course the MPG I might be able to get from something like that might be a real help. But most Hondas out there have been thrashed, and there's also the problem I have of just being bored by them.

So that brings me to my secondary group of candidates: things like the Mercedes W123, W124, BMW E34 (had one and it was a tank), or more recently the Volvo 240. I'm attracted to the idea of an exceptionally durable car that will last me a long time if treated well. Admittedly the Volvo hasn't ever interested me before now, but some reading up on them has prompted me to look at them differently.

So here's my question: I'm looking for a solid daily-driver with a manual transmission that gets decent MPG and is relatively cheap to own. I can do minor DIY repairs, but I want to avoid anything that has a pretty high cost-of-ownership. How does the 240 compare to things like the W123/W124 in terms of reliability and running cost (I would imagine parts/repairs would be generally cheaper)? And if it were you, would you just buy a Honda and play it safe?

Thanks for any insight you can offer! By the way, I'm considering a wagon to make this the ultimate practical utility.

 

https://volvoforums.com/forum/volvo-...40-sale-74084/
Not your choice exactly.

 

A 240 wagon is as boring as you can get but the lowest maintenance car I know of. My red block 740 GLE cost me about $170 per year and I had over 400,000 miles on it.

When you look at them, try to make sure the wiring under the hood still has coating on them.

 

the 1983-1987 volvos had 'biodegradable wiring', so do 1987-1991 mercedes (ok, I'm not quite sure of the years of the benzes with this problem).. Benz used KE-Jet "CIS" injection until circa 1993(!) while Volvo switched to EFI circa 1983.

W124 is a sweet car when in tip top shape but very complex, everything is time consuming to disassemble/reassemble to do repairs, and way more complicated than it should be. W124 wagons ALL have hydro-pneumatic rear suspension, which is often problematic on a 20+ year old car.


its fairly hard to find a Volvo 240 stick in the newer years (say, 1985+), and even harder to find a Mercedes stick.

I have a 1991 W124 Benz 300E2.6 sedan, and I have to say, thats the mushiest automatic transmission I've ever driven. the car starts in 2nd gear, and slushes its way into 4th before you're even going 30mph. its fine if you're going for that limo smooth ride, but awful when you wanna hustle. there's a dirty trick, you put it in '2' when stopped (there is no '1'), and as soon as you're rolling, shift it to '3' so it can shift out of '1' (yeah, whaaa?). if you don't get the timing right, it isn't very smooth.

ANY 20+ year old car, you'll be sorting out things like bad rubber hoses, tired suspension bits, funky interiors for a few years, unless they were maintained by a zealot. good thing about a 240, as long as it hasn't been overheated, or run without any oil in the engine or transmission, they are virtually indestructible, and can go a half million miles. our 240 has had numerous drivers since we bought it new, including both our teenagers learning to drive, and still runs strong at 400K miles. I've taken decent care of it, but oil changes were neglected sometimes for 10-12K miles, yada yada. in the past 5 or 6 years, a fair amount of 'new' has been put into it, like new radiator, new heater valve, etc etc.

my daily driver and utility hauler is a volvo 1992 740 wagon, I find they and the 940's are a little more refined, better sound proofing, but same engine, transmission, etc.

 

Pierce, thanks for the excellent and detailed response! You're right about the ridiculous biodegradable harness in the W124, but I think instead it was from 1992ish-1995. I think actually because I'm considering this car as a hopefully very reliable and hassle-free daily-driver, I'm actually leaning towards the Volvo. I like the 740's refinements but I must admit to preferring the 240's character. I can't believe I'm acknowledging a Volvo's character! What a long way I've come.

I really, really need it to be a manual tranny though. Otherwise, honestly, I think I'd probably go with a Civic or something. Are they really that rare?

 

whjen my wife bought her 1987 240 new, we couldn't find a stick shift in stock in the SF Bay Area, they were all automatics. Sticks /were/ in the catalog, but ordering one would have taken months.

 

That doesn't sound good as far as finding one used, then! Hmm. Well, I guess I'll keep a look out. Civics on the other hand are easily found, but not so easily found in in-screwed-with condition. So maybe by the time I find a Civic owned by an actual adult I'll find a Volvo with a stick. Or I can keep dreaming.

 

older 240s were more likely to be stick, especially the late 70s, early 80s

 

I love Volvos but as far as reliability alone I think a Civic or a Corolla is a better choice. Fuel economy is much better and finding a stick is much easier too. Also, a Civic or a Corolla stickshift drive much nicer than an old Volvo stick. Red Block manuals are just not very pleasant to drive. I love manual cars but some models just don't do it as well as others, old Volvos being one of those. Also, the automatics Volvo used the Aw70-71 are great automatics, some of the best and simplest ever made--something to consider.

 

I used to have a '76 volvo wagon with manual trans and it was one of the most entertaining cornering cars I have ever owned. I view the 240 as an extremely durable if not reliable car. I have a '76 and an '83 sedan currently, both automatic. I like the auto in the '83, but will eventually put a manual in the '76. I would highly recommend an earlier 240. Barring that, I would recommend a '90- 99volkswagen passat, jetta or especially an '87-'93 fox wagon. VW has a great community and parts are readily available and the bentley manuals for them are usually spot- on. I have a '90 jetta and a '90 fox sedan and love both of them. Both are well over 200k and have proven very reliable. I really feel that honda's drive like a sewing machine. I drove a gifted '89 civic for 6 months before the pit in my stomach every time I walked out to the car became too much to bear. There are a lot of good 240's out there still. Sure, look at the wiring in the compartment, but it's not like you can't shore it up or replace the bad bits.

 

'90-'99 Passat? That covers three models with major differences.

The mid nineties Passat the VR6 is thirsty and unreliable, the '98 and up till 2005 is a good, modern car, great with 1.8T and stickshift and a sludging problem if oil is not meticulously changed and synthetic. That is better than modern FWD Volvos. Passat's not so good a car with the Audi 2.8 and really problematic auto tranny. The Jettas of the same vintage are good also with the 1.8T, not good with the 2.0 which is thirsty and badly powered for its size, same for the VR6.

Older Jettas/Golfs are nice and simple and economical if you can find them untrashed--too many "enthusiasts"... Foxes? Hmm, I believe this is the first opinion I have heard that's not totally negative. Can't remember last time I saw one but since I never had one, I demure...
"Hondas drive like sewing machines". Well, last time I mounted a sewing machine it wouldn't go anywhere, so again, I don't know... Many people seem to like them, I guess many seamstresses out there--you'd think they would opt for Yamahas.

 

Yes, the fox is so simple to work on and is quite robust mechanically. Also has go- kart handling. The powerband of a honda is completely flat. When driving a standard transmission car, it is imperative to have a curve in the powerband as to take advantage of the manual shifting. A honda may increase rpm's like a sewing machine, but there are no sweet spots. I do not like post 2000 vw;s because of the gaudy trim levels and cheap fasteners. I disagree with your asessment in terms of reliability. As for fuel consumption, the OP is considering a 240, so.

 

on the jetta etc, try and find one made in germany (its baked into the VIN), they are usually much better quality. VW's suffer from weak door handles, and interiors that tend to fall apart. I had a 84 cabrio and a 89 Jetta GLi 16V, both very entertaining cars, considering they had 90 and 125HP respectively. they loved to have hte **** driven out of them, revving to the redline in each gear, both those had very short ratio gearboxes.

 

Yeah I guess it depends on where you are. I have a 1990 240DL with a m47 five speed trans but I have been looking for a wagon and can't find to many manuals.

 

btw, re the Volvo 240 manual transmissions, the older M46 4speed + electric overdrive is supposed to be a stronger transmission than the later M47 5 speed. of course, it has the downside of an old electric control system that might need sorting out.