Ok, I am trying to decide between an 89 Volvo 240 DL Wagon (manual) with 91K and a 92 240 Wagon (automatic) with 158K. Other unknowns put aside, is one year better than another? I prefer a stick shift but know the 92 is newer with more features (but more miles too). I know the 92 has ABS and driver airbag (which 89 does not), but are there other things to consider? Engine issues? Other stuff? I defer to the collective knowledge of brickboard to help me on my quest...

All other factors and issues as prevously posted taken into consideration ...

I have to disagree about the manual tranny being more fun. I used to think that and held onto my 83 245GL with M46 for years but it gets old fast in heavy stop-and-go traffic. And then I learned to power brake. Now I have more fun with that!

Also, not previously mentioned; suggest you check with your insurance to see if there is any appreciable difference in having the ABS and Driver Airbag.

Good luck.
--
84 244GL and 85 245DL

I'd go with the '89, I drive a shift in the city, no big deal.

If the automatic goes out, it's getting pretty hard to find used one nowadays.

No difference with insurance, companies don't take that stuff into consideration anymore.

What is power braking?
Stopped w/left foot on brake, rev engine with right foot and then let go??

I've been wondering if that puts wear on the auto tranny clutch packs but I don't know enough about the tranny internals.
--
Sven: '89 245 NA, 951 ECU, open-front airbox, E-fan, 205/65-15's, IPD sways, E-Codes, amber front corner reflectors, quad horns. Wifemobile '89 245 NA stock. 90 244 NA spare, runs.

Yes, you got it. Except I don't really "rev" the engine. Never tried that. Is that how you do burn-out's? I don't know.

Anyway, I practised this for a long time after being first introduced and trained on it by Police Instructors. This is how they are taught (here) to drive for pursuit driving. However I understand this is also how Limo drivers drive and for them the art is to make it such a smooth transition that stationary to moving is un-noticable.

So, without putting undue stress on the tranny, one can still get very good take-offs and cornering. As I said, it can be fun, especially in an old Volvo. No-one suspects an old Volvo, right?
--
84 244GL and 85 245DL

I finally googled to get more information on power braking. Also googled Brake Torquing which is another name for the technique.

Discussed in references below - the topic of launching from a dead stop by braking with left foot, rev motor, then release brake. Long story short, one post says you get the same results by mashing the accel quickly to floor without holding brake down, without the tranny wear caused by power braking. Some say it hurts the tranny, some say not. For a Volvo where I expect a long lifespan, I won't be doing this any more.

http://www.f150online.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-15220.html
http://www.dsmsource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65523&page=3
--
Sven: '89 245 NA, 951 ECU, open-front airbox, E-fan, 205/65-15's, IPD sways, E-Codes, amber front corner reflectors, quad horns. Wifemobile '89 245 NA stock. 90 244 NA spare, runs.

"Discussed in references below - the topic of launching from a dead stop by braking with left foot, rev motor, then release brake"

Well, I hope you understand that the technique I was trying to describe is a simultaneous releasing of the brake with a gradual and corresponding increase to the throttle. Just like driving a stick shift.

Nowhere do I advocate revving the motor, then releasing the brake. I'm talking about a gradual transition. I agree with you -- why put unwarranted stress on the tranny.

But it took me a while to practise to get it smooth.
--
84 244GL and 85 245DL

My 245 Turbo could be launched hard by power braking.

Brake down, gas pedal down, wait for the boost gauge to go up, then let off the brake. Zoom!!!!! Accompanied by a cloud of tire smoke unless you modulated it.

Of course, even though it was probably faster with the auto, I didn't like driving it. So I swapped an M47 5 speed in. no more power braking, but it's still more fun.
--
'63 PV544 rat rod, '93 Classic 245 + turbo

Lets not forget the "notorious" "Neutral Drop" with an auto... rev it up to 4K RPM and drop the shifter from N to D. In a 240, I'd expect the spontaneous shock to the drivetrain would blow the trans tail shaft or a U-joint if you are lucky. Saw an idiot do this in a 57 Chevy with a big block and posi once... drivetrain survived except for all the wheel studs on both rear wheels. The studs were cheap to replace but the wrinkled rear quarter panels was a small fortune!

jorrell
--
92 245 245K miles, IPD'd to the hilt, 06 XC70, 00 Eclipse custom Turbo setup...currently in pieces

Some people may think an automatic tranny makes the 240 too sluggish but I've never noticed it. Long time ago I discovered that Dad's '91 245 auto could whip a friend's '83 manual with it's eyes closed.

BTW, I thought of another difference - we (collective brickboard effort) recently discussed the fact that in the early 90's Volvo seems to have upgraded the suspensions on the 240, including stiffer front sways and possibly slightly stiffer springs. Think about it.
--
Sean Corron

You are asking a more specific question than the title of your message. A twisted seat in the 89 could be a failed seat, rotten floor boards, or heaven forbid, crash damage that was never corrected. The 92s have great AC, 89s well, er, uh, they have AC.

The final question you have to ask yourself is if crash survivability is important to you. Based on Family experience and Neurosurgeon input, if you crash into a solid object at 55MPH in an 89, you have a 3 percent survival probability followed by a six month recovery and close to $100K in medical bills. Same wreck in a 92 with a fully functional SRS, you stand an 80 percent chance of walking away with bruises, the 20 remaining percent is covered by degrees of recoverable injuries.

Please note: I did say fully functional SRS, the air bags are only good for 15 years and cost $1K to replace. Hmmm, an extra $1K to prevent a $100K expense (if you live) and lost income for the six month recovery period.

Its your call, personally, I'd go with the 92, the AW-70 trans is pretty tough and I wish my Wife had been in a 92 with SRS during her crash. She nearly died and the Neurosurgeon was very specific that with SRS she would have been able to walk away. Yes, she was wearing her seat belt, the friction of the tensioning mechanism even part way melted the belt.

Your call... just put a fresh air bag in the steering column last week (15 years were up!)

jorrell
--
92 245 245K miles, IPD'd to the hilt, 06 XC70, 00 Eclipse custom Turbo setup...currently in pieces

I like the stick but auto's are fine. Which one is better maintained. Which one looks better inside and out. Is one from the rust belt? They are basically the same but the 92 is a bit more refined. Weigh the pluses and minuses, either way it's a car you can easily drive for another 10 years. It didn't cost you a fortune and it won't cost a fortune to keep it going. Dan

I would go for the 5 speed manual as Sven posted...plus 30 miles per gal.

Even though its only got 91K, the one thing you should check out is the condition of the trans. I bought a 5 speed with only 103K and the tranny was trashed, went 10K before it had problems. The 5 speeds, if not maintained with a proper fuild level, will chew up the carrier bearing on the 5th gear...putting metal filings into the tranny fluid which just grinds into other things. You need to at least remove the filler plug and examine its magnet for metal filings and check the fluid condition and level. If you really want to be sure, drain it into a clean container, look for metal particles in the fluid and on the drain plug magnet.

Everything could be just fine and the 5 speed is great, but this is a point to check out when buying one.

Why oh why don't they make 240s anymore :(
75 245(RIP), 80 244 M45 226K, 87 245 M47 172K

As far as I'm concerned you can't really compare a brick
with a manual tranny against the automatic. It's just so much
more responsive and fun to drive, besides being better on gas mileage.
The 4-cyl Volvo is just too sluggish for the automatic.
--
-Cool Volvo- 1982 240 4 Spd OD w/ 248K, 1989 240 5 Spd w/ 241K. Past proud owner of 1966 122, 1968 144, 1970 145, 1972 144, 1980 245

As our president might say, overall condition should be the decider. They're pretty comparable otherwise. Mileage is meaningless in in these cars: Our 740 has well over twice the mileage as the 240. Can't tell any difference in running.

Manual trannies are fun and economical, but look at the whole picture. ABS is nice. SRS never hurts. The '92 will have an A/C more easily adaptable to r134. The windshield will have the less leak/rust prone lack of chrome trim.

How are the mechanicals and body condition between the two? Any rust? What are the prices like?

-Ryan
--
--------------------------
Athens, Ohio
1990 245 DL 130k M47, E-codes
1991 745 GL 280k (Girlfriend-mobile)
Buckeye Volvo Club

The guy with the 89 wants $2300 while the 92 is asking $2000. I haven't gotten up close and personal yet, just emails and pictures. The Driver's seat in the 89 is totally leaning over to the right and looks almost twisted slightly. Looks like it needs to be replaced totally.

I used to have an 89 and it did leak through the windshield during heavy rains. So a 92 would be less prone to that?

Thanks!!

Suposedly, the newer windshield style is less prone to rust. Makes sense, in that the chrome/gasket surround on the pre-1991 cars is a great place for moisture to live for a bit after the rain. And at least by 1990 they were still suffering from the "slumping" butyl adhesive syndrome.

The driver's seat sounds like either classic 240 broken seat issues or a rusty floor. Check that out.

Drive the cars over a bumpy road, listen for rattles. Look for rust. With the manual transmission car, listen for any funny sounds while driving in 5th gear. Original clutch?

If you live in places where you spend significant amount of time in traffic, go with the auto trans. First gear with the manual tranny is a very low gear (I usually upshift around 10mph, and you're revving pretty good above 5mph), so you're in and out of it quite a bit in the stop and go traffic.

If you spend most of the time cruising down the highway, the manual really shows its strengths. I conservatively estimated that my '90 wagon with the 5-spd topped out at 34mpg on the highway through the mountains last summer, and got a consistant 32mpg on level highway at 70mph.

-Ryan

--
--------------------------
Athens, Ohio
1990 245 DL 130k M47, E-codes
1991 745 GL 280k (Girlfriend-mobile)
Buckeye Volvo Club

For all the reasons posted by others - I vote for the '89 with stick shift.
We have two '89s and haven't had computer problems. I think most of the bad ones have already been replaced.

However my real reasoning is that over the long haul you likely will save lots of money on fuel with the standard.

For sake of argument figure you can get another 100K miles out of the car. Actually another 200K or more is reasonable but maybe you only drive 10-15K mi/year.

100 K mi @ 23 mpg = 4348 gal x $4/gal = $17,400 fuel cost
100 K mi @ 29 mpg = 3448 gal x $4/gal = $13,793 fuel cost
so you stand to save something like $3600 driving the standard!

Don't want to think about $4/gallon fuel?
If it's $3/gallon, the difference is $2699.

The mpg estimates I used are based on my recollection of discussions here on bboard some months ago. As always, ymmv.
--
Sven: '89 245 NA, 951 ECU, open-front airbox, E-fan, 205/65-15's, IPD sways, E-Codes, amber front corner reflectors, quad horns. Wifemobile '89 245 NA stock. 90 244 NA spare, runs.

While both cars use LH2.4 ignition, 89 was the first hear for this system and its more problematic than the 92 model year. Its not thing major, just a computer that might need to be swapped out eventually with a JY unit from a newer car. I would still pick the 89 for the lower mileage but if things like airbags and abs are important to you, go for the 92.

What color combos are the car? I would avoid any with tan/putty interiors and the red/burgundy paint. That color red is hard to keep looking shiny and the tan interior "plastics" are more prone to breakage.

Where/How did you find an 89 240 Wagon with a 5 speed and only 90K miles? If that car was garage kept and in good condition I would pay $5k for it.

Let us know what you decide,
Kevin

PS I am currently driving an 89 240 Wagon with 5speed, White w/blue interior 134K miles.

Like Blue Horse said, there is little difference between the two years besides that which you already know.

I would go for the '89 and here's why: At right about 13 years, everything but the engine and body on these cars begins to wear out - bushings, shocks, struts, seat foam, vinyl, etc. I know, Dad bought his 245 at about 13 years old and we spent a few years steadily replacing worn parts. Last year I bought my completely original '93 at 13 years old and I've spent the past year replacing shocks, struts, bushings, etc. and the plastic is only now beginning to crack.

An '89 in constant service has probably already had all of this stuff replaced but a '92 could still be hanging on with those old wear items ready to be a major pain in the butt and hit to the wallet.

If the level of maintenance on the two cars has been comparable, I'd go with the '89.
--
Sean Corron

They both sounds good, I'll buy both of them, when you feel like driving a stick jump into the 89. Feel lazy, drive the 92. When one break down, you've a spare. Some parts are interchange, I've 5 of them ( 240 Volvo ).

While I am not as knowledgeable as some on the intricacies of late 240s, my understanding is that there is little to choose from between an 89 and an 92. Both have the LH 2.4 injection/ignition system, which is OK, though it can have occasional problems. 88s used the older LH 2.2, which is about as trouble-free as they come. 86 and 87 used the 2.2 as well, but can suffer from deteriorated electrical wiring. 93s had an improved AC system, that uses R134a from the factory. If cold air is important to you, this is the one to get. (older models can be made to work satisfatorily, but a proper 134a conversion is a lot of work, and when finished they don't get as cold as a 93)

If the choice were mine, of the two cars you describe, I would pick the one with the manual transmission, all else being equal, as I prefer a stick. 91K is very low mileage, but 158K is nothing to worry about, if the car has been maintained anywhere near properly. In any case, the 240 is a very safe car, whether or not it has air bag and ABS.

Another factor to consider is the color of the car, both in terms of personal preference and comfort/durability. Solid color paint tends to last better than metallic, (and some metallics are better than others, with dark gray seeming to be the most prone to failure) and can be buffed out if it becomes dull. If you live in a hot climate, a dark colored car will bake in the sun, making the AC work harder, and the interior plastic will be more likely to crack.

Ugh, I chose an 89' specifically because of the lack of ABS, SRS, STC, STD, etc etc... I hate new cars and how they take the skill out of driving. also with the Volvo even if you go too far and lock up the brakes - it's still extremely easy to control. So if you're that much of a sissy that you require ABS, then go for it ;)
SRS airbags - well first generation SRS is known to kill more people than it saved. Food for thought.
All in all, I think that those two items are inconsequential, and really, the cleanest car with the most meticiulous records should be chosen. I would take the 89', but the 92' is still very much a solid car.

[quote]Solid color paint tends to last better than metallic[/quote]

The hell have you been smoking? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard about paint. Totally wrong. In fact if anything, it's the cars with metallic that seem to hold up better than the volvos without metallic paint.
Don't let paint influence your final purchase.

~Brett
Gold metallic 89' Volvo - with paint that still bleeds after 140,000 miles & 18 years

While lower mileage is generally better so is newer versus older in age. However this is a tough question to pose to Brickboard as a general question as to properly answer this the specific two cars that you are considering would have to be seen/inspected and then it could be determined which is the better of the two. You should bring them both to a trusted reputable Volvo mechanic to have them do just this.