I'm looking at replacing my '86 sedan with 439K miles on it for a different car.
Both are in mint condition with low miles (less than 130K each). The first is a 1979 244DL sedan, 4 speed no OD, no power steering and no a/c, but a beautiful car. The other is a 1990 240DL sedan loaded. Auto, air, ps, pw. Both are up to date on their major services and have all maintance history available. Neither car has a sunroof. Each car is the same price. I have a place locally that will install custom a/c in the '79. I'm torn between the two cars. Help me make a decision here. I'd really appreciate any and all opinions and advice pro and con to both cars. If I'd won lotto tonight, I wouldn't have to be writting this, I'd just buy them both.

Thanks to all for looking and helping me sleep better tonight.

--

I vote you buy both. The prices could not be too high. I like the idea of the basic 1979 model: manual steering and real transmission. But the others are right that the 1990 would be more comfortable, have more parts available, etc. If the 1979 is really clean and has no rust, it would be a pity to let it go, especially if it sold for a pittance to a non-Volvo type of person.

For driving purposes (as opposed to museum display purposes), I'd pick the 1990 car. Although I prefer manual transmissions, especially on older lower power cars, the 1979 car's lack of overdrive and weaker less fuel efficient engine cancel out the advantage of having a manual. The only other disadvantage I see with the 1990 is the aero headlamp lenses that cloud up and are expensive to replace.

Other than that, the 1990 car's advantages include factory air conditioning, better rust protection, better wiring harnesses, better availability of service information and parts, and better crash protection (did you know that the 1979 244 did not do very well in early NHTSA crash tests, due to excessive seat belt stretch and spool out, remedied by 1982 with shorter seat belts?). Plus, older cars may be more likely to have rubber hoses and such crack, causing annoying drivability problems and emissions test failures.

130,000 miles is low for age (for either car), but sometimes low mileage might mean city miles, short trips, or sitting for a long period of time without being driven.

I had a 79 wagon, [ w/ 3spd automatic and power steering so not exactly a comparison to your 79]. But the 2.1 liter had marginal performance, can't imagine with A/C. Steering wheel was huge, was a really solid car and felt heavy, but there was a big difference when I got my 88 automatic wagon. Better fuel economy, quieter, ok performance with A/C. Parts are easier to get for the 90. I vote for the 90.

I think the majority is leaning to what I expected, the '90 model. I'll keep everyone posted as to what I find.

Thanks again to all.
--

the harder the decision is for you the more either is correct. But having owned both I enjoyed the 90, some say it was the peak engineering and simplicity of the 240s.

I'd go with the '90 too unless you do a minimal amount of driving and most of that around town. I owned a 73 BMW 2002 with a four speed stick and it was very uncomfortable up over 65. I just felt sorry for the engine revving so much!
The 90 will be more comfortable and more like a "modern" car with all of the character of the older 240's. I prefer a stick shift, but I would trade that off for an automatic in a minute for a car with factory A/C and all of the upgrades and conveniences that the newer model would have.

Bob, with out a doubt in my mind I'd go with the '90 240. Rule out the pros and cons on each car. Have you seen them both, and driven them?
You will have your deep down gut feeling, so go by that.
--
Michael Bilinski '89 244 DL

If the 90 has no sunroof, I'd go with that
--
89 240 Wagon 217K, 94 940 185K

The 79 would be fun, roll the dice.
Dan

I would be suspicious of 130K (about 80,000 miles) on any 1979 engine, but that's just me. You have to decide if it is really that low mileage or not.

The '90 has power steering and the 'new' ball joint design for more caster angle and better self-centering. It also has an integrated AC system which IMO will be better than a hang-on system, and the money you save on that will easily cover converting the '90 to R-134a if that hasn't been done already.

I'd personally prefer the manual trans but overall, I say go with the '90.

As a daily driver, 1990 without a doubt.

As a 240 to ogle over, the '79.

-Ryan

--

Athens, Ohio
1987 245 DL 324k, Dog-mobile, E-codes
1990 245 DL 137k M47, E-codes, GT Sways/Braces, Dracos, A-cam
1990 744GLE 189K 16-valve project
1991 745 GL 304k, Regina, 23/21mm Turbo Sway Bars

I love the simplicity, ease of maintenance of the '79.. bare bones.

I expect the '90 would be a more comfortable car. And it's past the wiring issues.

Depends on the driving you do... if you ever get upwards of 75mph, I'd go with the '90.

If just for around town commuting... ah.. heck. I'd probably still go with the '90.

Better yet... come on, man... get that thing to at least a half million!!!
--
-Matt I ♥ my ♂

If rust or could be an issue, get the '90.