|
|
|
Well, I just inherited $14,000. I have a 1995 850 wagon that I have nursed since birth...188,000. It will only be a short time before it asks for more repairs ($$$). Thus, I think it best to put it out to pasture and start again with a 'newer' vehicle. At age 60, I do not want a new vehicle, as I don't have extra cash to spend, over the $14K. I have better things to do with my money (retirement?).
I need a wagon. My 850 gets about 20mpg, and I would love to see more. So, do I change to another auto maker? Do I just 'upgrade' into a newer Volvo? If Volvo? What is my best choice for a wagon, given the $14K here in NY? My other consideration was Subaru...but I find it hard to make that swap. Been driving Volvos since I could drive (144S, 240, P1800, 740, 760, 850, S40)...
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be photonmaster
on
Wed Mar 23 10:23 CST 2011 [ RELATED]
|
|
My apologies for being late to the discussion table.
I beg to differ from everyone else. I was in your shoes (sort of) about eighteen months ago: my 1997 850 was quickly getting old and I was getting tired of fixing it. I took a dive and bought a 2009 Vol^Z^Z^Z Mazda5 Sport with a manual transmission. It was over $14K, not by much though - I paid $14.9K plus my beloved 13-year old Volvo (yes, I was in love with my Volvo - pretty much like all or most of you are). Am I sorry 18 months later? No! If anything, I am sorry I did not move a year or two sooner. Other manufacturers did after all come a long way since 1970's (safety wise). If you do not want to talk safety though, let's switch to driving experience. My new car, believe it or not, performs very similarly to the old one (both, acceleration and handling). I actually (gasp) enjoy driving it as much as I enjoyed the 850 (and I did like it a lot). Space inside is also very similar (850 was a wagon). Mazda is a little smaller on the outside, but I'd consider it a plus. Where Mazda certainly trail behind is a quality of interior materials - it certainly looks and feels cheaper. But the car IS cheaper than a Volvo - roughly by a factor of 2. However, in my book, hard plastic on the dashboard (assuming that car cheapness does not manifest itself 10 years later in some other ugly way) beats replacing the air pump, heater core, torque converter, and many other parts that I can not remember.
To summarize - I am very happy with my decision to go with a Mazda5 and do believe that it is a legitimate replacement for a Volvo wagon (and this comes form a former long-time Volvo owner - we have been a two-Volvo family forever...)
The last point: If $14K is a hard cut-off, check used prices. I am sure, you can get a 2010 for less than that. And, by the way, if you are not stock on getting a manual (like I was), you probably can do even better...
A former Volvo owner
|
|
-
|
|
|
I'm not in the same position, but I have something to add to this comment:
the new breed of mini-minivans are very appealing to me, with my young family (I have a wife, a dog, and a new baby!). Specifically I'm speaking of the Mazda5, but also the Kia Rio, though the lack of sliding rear doors bumps it down a few notches for me. The as-yet-not-arrived 2012 Ford C-Max is the best one yet IMHO, and the newly unveiled B-Max is a real winner though I doubt we'll see it here in NA.
The overall size is about the same as my current Volvo wagon, only a bit taller - the interior space is incredible, and the seating options are really astounding. They come with excellent safety features (being so family oriented) and also great technology options. Plus, they get better mileage than traditional minivans which are much taller and heavier, and are really a waste of space unless you're routinely hauling more than 3 kids and 2 adults. Ditto for even the 'small' SUVs which use giant wheels and tires for appearance which kills the mileage as well.
I wish these smaller cars were available with AWD like those small SUVs though. The closest I've seen to one of these cars with AWD is the Matrix/Vibe with AWD, or perhaps the small Subarus. Not sure if the new Cruze hatchback will be available with AWD...
--
1998 V70 AWD->FWD Turbo 200k+
|
|
-
|
|
|
Non European cars run on regular gasoline! What a novel idea!
Klaus
--
Always willing to listen, just not able to take direction.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be photonmaster
on
Wed Mar 23 13:22 CST 2011 [ RELATED]
|
|
"...Plus, they get better mileage than traditional minivans which are much taller and heavier, and are really a waste of space unless you're routinely hauling more than 3 kids and 2 adults...."
Even if you are hauling 3 kids and 2 adults (as I routinely do) you still get a better mileage than a Volvo wagon. Not by a lot (~10%), but better...
|
|
-
|
|
|
haha you're right about that.
Anyone care to weigh in on why Volvo's gas engines get such mediocre fuel economy?
Their cars are heavy but not overly so. Comparable weight cars from other manufacturers seem to do better.
Their engines last a LONG time, so perhaps it's just a product of engineering for longevity?
The gas engines don't give breathtaking performance either, though I'm not sure how the performance stacks up against similarly sized cars...
It's really a pain that they only ship the gas engines to NA. In europe they have so many engines to choose from, and the economy oriented engines actually seem to get decent mileage....
--
1998 V70 AWD->FWD Turbo 200k+
|
|
-
|
|
|
Volvo's MPG suffers while trying to compete with BMW/AUDI/MB in the BHP race. Remember, we do not have an Autobahn to explore the top speed of the Volvos which is over 150MPH with the European chip.
My 2.3L HPT used to get 27-28mpg on the highway and around 22mpg local. Today, with 185K+ it gets 19mpg around town and 26mpg highway. Cross winds do not bother the Volvo, the XC70 and my 1998 is also AWD which does take extra MPG.
Germany sells premium gasoline only, no regular or mid-grade. So the engines are designed to run on premium, just like the other big 3 cars. Europeans get many different sized engines, some depending on the country the car is sold in. Their tax structure for cars is based on displacement, so a 2L engine is much cheaper than a 3.2L on an annual basis. I remember seeing a BMW 312 in Yugoslavia a number of years back - 1200cc.
My wonder is the American public. Why buy an SUV when a minivan carries more people and luggage, gets better MPG, cheaper, and is shorter than an SUV?
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q3/2011_honda_odyssey-first_drive_review
Klaus
--
Always willing to listen, just not able to take direction.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I agree fix your car and invest or save the rest. Maybe new retirement account? 850's can go 400k+ so yours should have a lot of life left.
If you really want to make a change consider moving up to a newer, lower mileage Volvo. 1998, 2003, 2004 V70's are all supposed to be good years and you'll still be able to bank some money. Subaru's are supposed to be good cars too.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Huh? See my signature.
I'd fix the stuff that needs to be fixed, and invest the rest. (Japan is having an "earthquake sale" on stocks today!)
-BTC
'98 V70 T5 188K mi., 5-speed manual, original clutch, heated velour cloth comfy chairs, factory HD suspension (1998 only), Bilstein HD, front IPD stabilizer bar, Volvo strut tower brace and skidplate, XC grill, C70 jewel E-Codes, V-1, Lidatek, IPD stuff, JB Weld, Original Duck Tape, zip-ties, Mobil-1 since new.
|
|
-
|
|
|
$14K is not that much money, besides, a newer wagon means more insurance and property tax every year, plus the sales tax when you buy it.
Your 1995 is a known commodity, a used wagon is not. You will not get much for the 1995 at sale time, and a 'good' V70 - think - 2003/4 is already old. Your wagon might need a new timing belt/water pump soon, plus a muffler, struts, control arms, rear hatch struts, etc. If you farm out the labor/parts, that could be close to $2K. Throw in some new tires and PVC plumbing and you are up to $3K. That still leaves you with $11K to put under your pillow.
Or you could spend it all on this:
http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/cto/2247168895.html
Knowing that in 15K miles you will need a new timing belt, etc.
Klaus
--
Always willing to listen, just not able to take direction.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I was hoping my 2005 V70 2.5T would have at least a few MPG improvement over my 1995 850T, when I purchased it as an upgrade.
Frustratingly, it actually gets worse mileage. I'm with Klaus - you may want to keep the '95 and enjoy the older, more substantial seats.
I sold my '95 with about 188K. I have to admit, I too was worried about higher maintenance bills at the time. But the fact is, that motor was in great shape and the car still ran very well. The tranny was a bit clunky...
|
|
-
|
|
|
Don,
You shouldn't reply to my post all of the time.
Besides, the 1995 was the last year for onboard diagnostics. And the pick & pulls are now full of good parts!!
Klaus
--
Always willing to listen, just not able to take direction.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Not always?
Yes, I recall that the '95 was the last year of the onboard diags - you told me that when I first came to this board about 6 years ago.
The irony is that when I complained here that I would no longer have that capability with my '98 S70T, you replied with "The '98 rarely throws a code, so I wouldn't bother getting a code reader." (-:
I haven't, and it hasn't throw a code. Of course I only drive it about 800 miles a year...
Don
|
|
-
|
|
|
Klaus is spot on, soak 3K into it, save the rest.
Spend some cash get your car tuned up, heck even have it detailed (if needed) and maybe a treat for yourself such as satellite radio, GPS, etc.
14K could go a long ways when you need it to rather then buying a depreciating item such as a car. (I say depreciating with utmost sincerity, even for our cherished Volvos...)
God knows what will be in store this summer with regards to fuel prices, and its a heck of a lot easier paying $5.00 a gallon for gas into a car that you flat out own...especially if you have "ahem" 11k in the bank to offset any other things life throws at you.
|
|
|
|
|
