25 years ago, Mercedes Benz was the gold standard of the world, as far as cars are concerned. Their engineering was unsurpassed, their build quality was as close to flawless as it is possible to get. The 116, 123 and 126 series cars that were produced at that time remain some of the best ever made anywhere, right up there with RWD Volvos. The diesels are particularly good.

However, for reasons that are not clear, this legendary quality, which had been maintained for three quarters of a century, began to slip at some point in the 80s. First there was the 380 V8 engine with the single row timing chain (think bicycle chain) that failed rapidly. All of them had to be updated at great expense to a double-row chain. The 124 series (300E etc.) of the late 80s was not a bad car, nor was the 201 series 190, but neither was up to the standards of the earlier models. The real lemon was the early 300E 4matic, on which the center differentials fail very consistently at a bit over 100K miles (kind of like the early Volvo XC wagons) At the same time, electrical problems , which were previously unheard of, started to become more common. One reason for this was that the cars for the US market were loaded down with every possible gadget known to man. As time passed, things only got worse. The merger with Chrysler led to further cheapening of designs, and quality slipped as well. The new system of designations, with the series letter coming first, heralded the latest stage of the decline. The inline 6 was replaced with a V6. Quality slipped further, to the point where, a few years ago, Mercedes was beaten by Chevrolet (!?!?!) in the JD Power survey of initial quality. The only car they were better than was Land Rover. Recent models have been plagued with an overabundance of electronics, including, on some, a system called Comand that combines trip computer, climate and stereo controls in a single incomprehensible knob on the console. Even when it is working correctly, this system is almost impossible to figure out.

The situation with BMW is even worse. Ever since the demise of the 2002, these cars have been overrated and overpriced. Though, to be fair, many of the 80s and early 90s models, particularly the 3 and 5 series, were decent cars, they had somehow acquired a reputation for quality and technical excellence beyond that which they deserved. Since then, the story has been much like that of Mercedes---an over-reliance on complicated electronics, (BMW's iDrive is even worse than M-B's Comand) and a steady decline in quality and reliability.

Sad to say, the top of the heap these days is Lexus, which is really nothing more than a fancy Toyota. The designs are totally blah, the engineering is nothing special either, but they have got the quality thing down. All those gimmicky "luxury" features are easy to use and give no trouble whatsoever, even as the cars age. Though these vehicles are more reliable than their European counterparts, they are every bit as much of a mechanics' nightmare under the hood. For that reason, I would never own one. I plan to stick with RWD Volvos for as long as it is possible to do so.

Don't plan on buying a 12 year old V50 T5 in 2020 and running up huge miles on it, maintaining it yourself. These new generation cars are not overbuilt the way a real Volvo is, and are vastly more complicated. They weren't made to last indefinitely, or to be repaired by amateurs, without the benefit of tens of thousands of dollars worth of electronic test equipment. Today, a 40 year old 122 is still viable as everyday transportation. There is no reason why a 40 year old 240 should not be likewise in 2025, or even 2030, assuming that cars are still in regular use at all by then.

Re: Mercedes and BMW

I haven't read the Consumer Reports article but I have a mechanic friend who works for BMW. Basically, as long as the car is under warranty the owner doesn't have to pay much for maintenance. But once out of warranty, look out! It may be better to trade in every 5 years rather than pay the out-of-warranty costs. Besides the 7 series BMW seem to have (had?) too many computer electronic gremlins.
--
1980 245 Canadian B21A with SU carb and M46 trans in Brampton, Ont.

When I bought my '93, I bought the best 240 I could find - low milage (100k), great paint, good interior, last year of the model, plus it was at a local dealer and had a 6 month powertrain warranty (I know, I know - stupid). On top of that, it was my favorite color - black.

I paid a rediculous amount for my 240 because I thought it would be a better investment in the long run. Since then (little less than two years ago)I have had to replace so much stuff I don't want to think about it. And coming up soon I will need to replace rotors all around, possibly a caliper, and maybe a transmission if it doesn't quit acting up after a flush.

Granted, I can do all of that stuff comparitively cheaply, but finding the time these days is hell. School takes up all my time and what little it doesn't I prefer to spend with my girlfriend.

Sometimes I too wonder if a newer car wouldn't have been a better investment. I keep telling myself though that once all the wear items on the car are replaced, it should be good for another 14 years. I hope...

hi ryan,

when all is said and done we have owned: 4 ...240's and 3 940's since i married (1976) and had kids. i do not count aged volvo's from my youth.

2 of the 940's were given to the kids and are still on the road. one of the 240's lives in the barn and is a proud organ donor for the others

1 of each was bought new and the others were best in show selected used.

with out fail we have collectively put on these 7 cars over 1 million miles...with myself, wife and kids doing the driving.

as of 1/1/2007 and after processing all the records of cost on these cars (my kids also maintain good files) i can say with authority the bought new ones cost on average 25 cents a mile to own while the used ones cost an average of 13 cents a mile with 1 one of the 240's costing to date under 8 cents mile to own.

i calculate costs as follows:

gas/oil/filters for the year
cost to purchase ammortised over to date length of ownership
all parts
labor and parts cost of any repairs i do not perform

all divided by yearly mileage

obviously the initial years cost more as the cost of purchase factored into the equation is steeper.

with the level of inflation factored into the purchase price....the bulk of new cars simply can not hope to equal this level of value even if you buy them new for cash and keep them for many years.

hello Ryan
i hear ya brother.
sometimes you can get a older volvo that just isnt worth keeping. i had a couple but realized too late in the game.
some are just better than others in my opinion. not the different rwd models but the particular vehicle.
i have gotten much more careful when buying a old volvo.
the 89 740 (350.00$) i picked up needed about as much work as many newer 940 i looked at in the three grand price range.
it has a good motor and tranny but i have added another 350.00$ and hope to be done. a very clean car that runs and shifts good.
then there is my 85 240 turbo which sucked up so much money i cant bring myself to sell.
i am now leaning towards the newest 940s i can find and willing to pay good money if properly cared for.
good luck
mike

the fleet
95 944 turbo a good one
94 944 a good one
93 944gl pretty good
89 744 we will see
86 244 a good one
85 244 turbo most expensive but fun
others that werent so good are NOT TOLORATED

Don't do it!!! Resist......resist the dark side!!!
--
1980 240 331k 20 years.

I hear ya, Ryan. There are some things the new cars have that my '86 doesn't. Like air bags and ABS. I have little bitty 14" steel wheels, a lousy radio, and rotten wiring.

But then I think about the non-availability of rear-wheel drive and my Volvo looks better and better.
--
1986 Volvo 240DL wagon

I agree. The problems for us come when in that next 15 years, we're having problems with poorly made new parts or discontinued parts (as I think upon my D-jet systems in the 1800e's)...

I recently have purchased a 1983 242 DL, and with only 1500 miles put on it so far by myself, it's at $0.54 cents per mile including gas, oil, insurance, and the maintenance I have put on it. That number is droping, however, fairly steadily, by about a dime a month so far since purchase. Daily cost is about $6.75, which is awesome...and factoring in the mileage I get paid for work, the car is around $0.35 cents per mile to own.

Just the cost of payments right now for the GF's 2005 S40 is $.25 a mile roughly, assuming about 1800 miles per month, is around $0.39 cents with gas, and in 7000 miles when it's out of warrantee, it will only rise, as she has been having some aweful problems with it lately (lost the fuel pressure sensor, misfiring and they thought it had water in the tank, but that seems unlikely).

No maintenance is included in that, at all, as it's warantee.

Filters alone for the car are two or three times as expensive as the W917 Mann. The sensors, I am sure are an abomination.

Oh yeah, and we put $600 into new tires just recently, because it doesn't take dinky 14 or 15", it has 17" tires (and base model was 16").

But yeah, it's faster than a old 240, and it has nice trim and seats, but does not have the leg room or the cargo capacity of even a 242. Because of its size and stance, it a collision with a high bumper SUV, I'm not convinced where I would be better off even with the side impact bags. Plus the turning radius and visibility are both horrible.

In 20 years, I think it will still be easier to get 240 parts than all the gizmos inside a new generation volvo.