240 Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter PButler111
  • Start date Start date
PButler111 said:
Sorry, I thought I made it clear that I was a 240 fan.
Click to expand...

So, do you own a 240? what year, model, mileage? (just curious)


BTW Rob, the current Mustang is not based on a 25 year old frame. It is a uni-body car,
the original "Pony" car was way different then (Mustang II), the new cars are completely
different, especially the latest ('99-up) the 5.0 isn't the V-8 anymore, and it has IRS
just like your 960 ;) (which I wish my 760 had, the '88s did). The popular 1984 Mustang
was a derivative of the late 70s Stang, which somewhat carried over into the early 90s,
that is where the story ended for that platform.

Also Butler, Ford also made the F-150 in 1993 available with a vinyl floor for a "hose
down" interior, this was and still is the MOST popular pickup truck ever made. Yes, they
still make it, and NO they don't make it with a "hose down" interior. Which means they've
basically eliminated all construction site purposes out of this truck, the market said "we
want a better truck that is quiet, leather interior, and updated",...... so Ford built it.

I think the general consensus is that we don't get your point.

BTW: I didn't base my value on what 245s are worth on my own merit, I live and breathe
cars, so I know a think or 1000 things about them.... Racing cars just brings that out of
me.

You can also check Ebay auctions:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q12822F08 $2600 No reserve. 1991 leather, driver airbag,
loaded

http://makeashorterlink.com/?O23861F08 $5500 No reserve 1990 DL cloth auto 60K miles

all 240s currently availble for auction:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G54822F08

Anyone who'd pay $11k USD for a 1993 240 is a die hard fanatic.
 
and dude, I said 140,000kms, not miles, you should read MY post a little bit
better.


Sure, and it would have been a FWD too.
Click to expand...

Did you, "dude"? I hope you can tell your Volvo models apart better than you
can the sexes.
 
Rob Guenther said:
How many people do you think would buy a car designed in the early 70s and
put to market in 1974?

They'd lose money on them, and they would have to totally rebuild the cars
to meet current safety/emmisions standards.

I do think Volvo should make one model that caters to the old style crowd.
Rear wheel drive, sedan and wagon, 4, turbo 4, and 6 cylinder powerplants,
your basic features like A/C and a good radio, excellent seats, and all the
safety features... S50/V60 anyone?
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me, problem is newer cars are all about planned obsolescence.
Make 'em cheap and hard to work on.
Rear wheel drive cars last too long for the manufacture's satisfaction, too
easy and cheap too fix, and cost more to make.
The manufacture loves a car with a short life span, they get to sell more.
 
Subject: Re: 240 Question
From: [email protected] (Timothy J. Lee)
Date: 4/18/2004 7:40 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>



People like them now because they are inexpensive, durable, and (for
wagons) very good work wagons. A new one would not fulfill the
"inexpensive" part of the equation -- few would be willing to pay new
prices (1993 new price was around $19000, which was considerably more
than typical cars like Accords, Camrys, etc.) for a 1970s design.
Click to expand...

I don't know any 240 fans who like them or bought them because of the price. A
friend of mine recently employed a professional search firm to locate his "new"
1992 240 wagon. I believe he ended up paying around $12,000. Hardly a
bargain, but worth it to get what you want. The same would be true of a new
240. It doesn't have to rival a Kia. People pay for what they want.
 
Subject: Re: 240 Question
From: "Marshall Earp" [email protected]
Date: 4/18/2004 8:01 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>




That makes no sense, today's safety standards are way lower then they used
to be. You run a '75 LTD into a '95 Metro guess who dies? The cafe standards
imposed by the government have made today's cars smaller, lighter and much,
much more dangerous.
Click to expand...

No kidding. If I have to be in a collision, I'd hope to be in my 1989 240 and
not my friend's 2004 Rav 4.
 
Subject: Re: 240 Question
From: "Myron Samila" [email protected]
Date: 4/18/2004 7:43 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email protected]>





SUVs are the hottest thing selling, that is why Volvo now makes one.

You know why Volvo stopped making this car? Cuz it was obsolete in the
market, THE MARKET
dictates what manufacturers will eventually make.


Say, you know what car company still makes a body style that everyone was
DICTATED to love
and drive? The Russian built Lada 1600. It started life as a Fiat 124, and
continued on
as a Lada, dah Comrad!
Click to expand...

You should have just said you were a moron at the outset and saved me a lot of
time and trouble trying to respond to you as though you were intelligent.
 
Marshall Earp said:
That makes no sense, today's safety standards are way lower then they used
to be. You run a '75 LTD into a '95 Metro guess who dies? The cafe standards
imposed by the government have made today's cars smaller, lighter and much,
much more dangerous.
Click to expand...



Are there a lot of '75 LTDs in your area? lol ;)



The Volvo S40 and Ford Focus are both small cars that fair well in a crash, it is all in
the design.

And if a Hummer H2 T-bones a 240? who wins? There are thousands of
H2/Yukons/Expeditions/Navigators here in Toronto. SUV T-boning a SUV scares me more than
a '75 LTD T-boning one of my little Fiat X1/9s.
 
Marshall said:
That makes no sense, today's safety standards are way lower then they used
to be. You run a '75 LTD into a '95 Metro guess who dies? The cafe standards
imposed by the government have made today's cars smaller, lighter and much,
much more dangerous.
Click to expand...

Total load of crap. If you look at the actual safety data most of the
safest vehicles (top 10) are about 3000#, have been for decades. Bigger
does not equal safer, good design design equals safer. CAFE has squat
to do with it.

Bill
 
PButler111 said:
I don't know any 240 fans who like them or bought them because of the price. A
friend of mine recently employed a professional search firm to locate his "new"
1992 240 wagon. I believe he ended up paying around $12,000.
Click to expand...

Shoot, I could have saved him $8,000 with this link: www.ebaymotors.com
Hardly a bargain, but worth it to get what you want.
The same would be true of a new
240. It doesn't have to rival a Kia.
Click to expand...
People pay for what they want.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's called a V70. They sell quite a few of them..

http://www.autointell.com/european_companies/volvo_cars/volvo-sales/volvo-na-sales-2000.htm

The V70 outselling the S60 (which was already available in mid 2000) in 2000 and almost in
2001).

They dropped the 240, for basically the same reason they dropped the 940/960 S90, LACK OF
SALES! (32 units sold in 1999!!)

1998- total units manufactured

Volvo S90/V90 - (29,950),

Volvo 940 - (39,350),

Volvo S80 - 32,800

Volvo S70/V70/C70 - 206,900

Volvo S40/V40 - 151,000
 
Marshall Earp said:
That makes no sense, today's safety standards are way lower then they used
to be. You run a '75 LTD into a '95 Metro guess who dies? The cafe standards
imposed by the government have made today's cars smaller, lighter and much,
much more dangerous.
Click to expand...

Look at the real world data. Some small cars are safer than some large
cars. That was not true years ago. Here are the facts:

The average death rate in all passenger vehicles during 1995-98 is 89
per million registered vehicle years, but the rate for some models is
two or three times as high. The lowest death rate was reported in the
Toyota Camry and the Volvo 850.
 
PButler111 said:
I don't know any 240 fans who like them or bought them because of the price.
Click to expand...

I do. Actually, more 2-series fans, who bought 264s and 265s to put V8s
into. That way, got get a good, well equipped car that isn't a slug...

Best of all, a good V8 conversion gets about the same economy as a V6
Volvo. :-)
A
friend of mine recently employed a professional search firm to locate his "new"
1992 240 wagon. I believe he ended up paying around $12,000.
Click to expand...

I hope you're kidding...
 
No, you are missing my point, the new car is dangerous. Take out the 75 LTD
and put in another 95 Metro. The occupants in both cars then die. It's a
matter of physics, the mass of any vehicle and velocity colliding with
another mass. You have a mess no matter what. Obviously you would be better
protected in a larger car.
Fairing well in a simulated and/or controlled low-speed crash really doesn't
mean anything. Very few drive slow on the highway and no highway accident is
controlled.
The popularity of SUV's is an example of people actually using their smarts
and putting their family in a safer vehicle.
People in little cars can spout off all they want about the coins they save
at the pump, but that money will never pay off the loss of a loved one.
I have a Volvo 760 and 245, those are the only small cars I will drive due
to the fact they are solidly built.
 
Headline: Death by the Gallon
Byline: James R. Healey
Dateline: July 2, 1999

"In the 24 years since a landmark law to conserve fuel, big cars have
shrunk to less-safe sizes and small cars have poured onto roads. As a
result, 46,000 people have died in crashes they would have survived
in bigger, heavier cars, according to USA Today analysis of crash
data since 1975, when the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was
passed.

"The law and the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards it
imposed have improved fuel efficiency. The average of passenger
vehicles on U.S. roads is 20 miles per gallon vs. 14 mpg in 1975. But
the cost has been roughly 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon
gained, the analysis shows."





"We have a small-car problem. If you want to solve the safety puzzle,
get rid of small cars," says Brian O'Neill, president of the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The institute, supported by
auto insurers, crash-tests more vehicles, more violently, than all
but the federal government. Little cars have big disadvantages in
crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the
car absorbs, the more the people inside have to."





"Tellingly, most small-car crash deaths involve only small cars - 56%
in 1997, from the latest government data. They run into something
else, such as a tree, or into one another.

"In contrast, just 1% of small-car deaths - 136 people - occurred in
crashes with midsize or big sport-utility vehicles in '97, according
to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the agency that enforces safety and fuel-efficiency
rules. NHTSA does not routinely publish that information. It
performed special data calculations at USA Today's request.

"Champions of small cars like to point out that even when the SUV
threat is unmasked, other big trucks remain a nemesis. NHTSA data
shows, however, that while crashes with pickups, vans and commercial
trucks accounted for 28% of small-car deaths in '97, such crashes
also accounted for 36% of large-car deaths.

"Others argue that small cars attract young, inexperienced drivers.
There's some truth there, but not enough to explain small cars' out-
of-proportion deaths. About 36% of small-car drivers involved in
fatal crashes in 1997 were younger than 25; and 25% of the drivers of
all vehicles involved in fatal wrecks were that age, according to
NHTSA data."





"Questionable results. CAFE and its small cars have not reduced
overall U.S. gasoline and diesel fuel consumption as hoped. A strong
economy and growing population have increased consumption. The U.S.
imports more oil now than when the standards were imposed."





"Although federal anti-pollution regulations require that big cars
emit no more pollution per mile than small cars, environmental
activists seize on this: Small engines typical of small cars burn
less fuel, so they emit less carbon dioxide.

"Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is a naturally occurring gas that's not
considered a pollutant by the Environmental Protection Agency, which
regulates auto pollution. But those worried about global warming say
CO{-2} is a culprit and should be regulated via tougher CAFE rules."





"Car-buying expert Bragg - author of Car Buyer's and Leaser's
Negotiating Bible - says few customers even ask about small cars.
Small-car sales are half what they were in their mid-'80s heyday.
Just 7% of new-vehicle shoppers say they'll consider a small car,
according to a 1999 study by California-based auto industry
consultant AutoPacific.

"That would cut small-car sales in half. Those who have small cars
want out: 82% won't buy another. To Bragg, the reasons are
obvious: "People need a back seat that holds more than a six-pack and
a pizza. And, there's the safety issue."
 
Sorry, I thought I made it clear that I was a 240 fan.
So, do you own a 240? what year, model, mileage? (just curious)
Click to expand...

I would think that would've been clear by now. 1989 240 wagon, 137,100 miles.
It replaced my 1986 240 wagon which replaced my 1983 240 wagon, neither of
which was even remotely near "used up" when I let them go.

Didn't read the rest of your post. Sure it was thrilling, though.
 
No, you are missing my point, the new car is dangerous. Take out the 75 LTD
and put in another 95 Metro. The occupants in both cars then die. It's a
matter of physics, the mass of any vehicle and velocity colliding with
another mass. You have a mess no matter what. Obviously you would be better
protected in a larger car.
Fairing well in a simulated and/or controlled low-speed crash really doesn't
mean anything. Very few drive slow on the highway and no highway accident is
controlled.
The popularity of SUV's is an example of people actually using their smarts
and putting their family in a safer vehicle.
People in little cars can spout off all they want about the coins they save
at the pump, but that money will never pay off the loss of a loved one.
I have a Volvo 760 and 245, those are the only small cars I will drive due
to the fact they are solidly built.
Click to expand...



Hehehe, I actually did get your point, I was just kidding about the '75 LTD

But also, a '95 Metro is a bad car anyhow (crash wise). Take a 2004 Toyota Echo Hatchback
(not sold in the US, but you do get Scion which is based on the Echo platform). The Echo
Hatchback is a SMALL car: The Echo hatchback is sold world wide as the Vitz or Yaris

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/vehicle-safety/ancap/sm-2000-2/toyota-echo-2000.html
The TOYOTA ECHO/YARIS performed well in the offset crash test (score 12.53 out of 16). The
passenger compartment held its shape very well. Injury measurements indicated a low risk
of serious injury but stiff structures in the knee impact areas resulted in reduced upper
leg scores.

The vehicle performed very well in the side impact crash (score 16 out of 16). EuroNCAP
noted that this was remarkable for a car without side airbags.

I wouldn't want a Suzuki/Metro anyhow, and they are no where near as good on fuel as the
Toyota Echo Hatchback.

I WISH they sold the Scion here :(, but we are getting the Smart cabrio!!
 

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 32 (members: 2, guests: 30)
Robots: 24

Trending content

Forum statistics

Threads
12,150
Messages
53,040
Members
2,182
Latest member
LWM
Back
Top