It seems to me that many posters on this board agree that later 240's were better then earlier 240s... Why is that?

I own a '77 244, and a '80 245. I have no idea what the mileage on the '77 is (the odometer is broken), but the '80 has gone to 415,000.


The '80 has never had a major problem ever. (One transmission in the life of the car, and two clutches.)

The family once owned a '89 245. It was a complete piece of garbage. It didn't have any rust or anything, but something was ALWAYS wrong with it. A computerized something or other seemed to fail at least once a month, or some sensor would fail, etc... I hated those stupid "Check Engine" and "Service" lights. That's another thing I like better about the earlier Volvos, they didn't have either of those lights!

I could never do much of the work on the '89 either... it had all these computer readout codes that didn't make any sense to me.

That '89 made me never want to drive a post '80 240 ever again. The '80 makes me love 240's, and is aging gracefully (no signs of rust). The '77 is still solid, although showing signs of rust. I don't know what to think anymore.

The only things I liked better about that '89 was that you could add more gauges to the dash, and that the headlights would turn off if you left them on accidentally when you removed the key, but still, it wasn't worth it for me.

So I am curious... Why do people like the post '80 240's more then the older ones?