To Keep, or Not to Keep?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert
  • Start date Start date
R

Robert

Hi all,

Here's the deal. I currently have a 1998 V70 XC and a 1993 940 (non-
turbo). I was offered by a wealthy relative a custom-built 1996
Mercury Grand Marquis Bayshore with not even 65,000 miles, all for
free, provided I pay the simple registration charge (about $50 here in
MD). But I can only keep two cars, it isn't economically possible for
me to have more than that. But which should I get rid of?

The Mercury I love, and so far for my uncle it's been extremely
reliable. It has a 5.0 litre Lincoln engine and any bells and whistles
you could imagine, plus a full air suspension to boot. It also is
probably the most roomy of the three with it's huge size...probably
its main downfall. Here in suburban Maryland I'm just afraid its too
big for most of the parking spots. I'm very comfortable driving it,
etc, and I don't mind parking in the back of a lot, but I'm just not
sure.

The 1998 V70 would probably make the most sense economically to get
rid of, just this year alone I've spent about $1200 in repairs.
However, the only reason I've kept it this long is because it's a very
nice car for long drives and vacations, with it's wagon/SUV body style
and comfortable seats. However, it does also have the worst gas
mileage of the three.

The 1993 940 would probably be my first choice to get rid of, but my
wife loves it. It has 137,000 miles on it and hasn't needed any major
repairs since she was hit almost ten years ago. But I'm just not sure
about how reliable it will be in the future. I've heard that the
powertrain/engine/transmission is virtually bulletproof, but that's no
guarentee for the next five years...

Any opinons? Which should go?
 
Robert said:
Hi all,

Here's the deal. I currently have a 1998 V70 XC and a 1993 940 (non-
turbo). I was offered by a wealthy relative a custom-built 1996
Mercury Grand Marquis Bayshore with not even 65,000 miles, all for
free, provided I pay the simple registration charge (about $50 here in
MD). But I can only keep two cars, it isn't economically possible for
me to have more than that. But which should I get rid of?

The Mercury I love, and so far for my uncle it's been extremely
reliable. It has a 5.0 litre Lincoln engine and any bells and whistles
you could imagine, plus a full air suspension to boot. It also is
probably the most roomy of the three with it's huge size...probably
its main downfall. Here in suburban Maryland I'm just afraid its too
big for most of the parking spots. I'm very comfortable driving it,
etc, and I don't mind parking in the back of a lot, but I'm just not
sure.

The 1998 V70 would probably make the most sense economically to get
rid of, just this year alone I've spent about $1200 in repairs.
However, the only reason I've kept it this long is because it's a very
nice car for long drives and vacations, with it's wagon/SUV body style
and comfortable seats. However, it does also have the worst gas
mileage of the three.

The 1993 940 would probably be my first choice to get rid of, but my
wife loves it. It has 137,000 miles on it and hasn't needed any major
repairs since she was hit almost ten years ago. But I'm just not sure
about how reliable it will be in the future. I've heard that the
powertrain/engine/transmission is virtually bulletproof, but that's no
guarentee for the next five years...

Any opinons? Which should go?
Click to expand...


Well keep in mind you're asking a Volvo group, but I would keep the 940
over all other choices personally, no question about it. 137K is low
mileage, those motors are well known to go 300 or 400K. It's old enough
that parts are cheap and easy to come by so it can be kept on the road
very cheaply. Accidents aside, I would put money on the 940 outlasting
the Mercury, likely by quite a wide margin.

Next choice would be the V70, good solid car, not quite as bulletproof
or as easy to work on as the 940 but not bad either and again should be
good for 250-300K with decent maintenance. Big, roomy, safe, yet nimble.
Should have good resale value, even 10 years from now.

As for the Mercury, yuck, huge clunky inneficient 1950s tech pushrod V8,
big lumbering grandpa car, pathetic resale value once it hits about 100K
miles, I'd be shocked if it's still on the road by 200K. All those bells
& whistles are a whole lot of things to go wrong. I swore off domestic
cars years ago though I still get suckered into working on one once in a
while, no thanks.
 
Hi all,
Click to expand...
Here's the deal. I currently have a 1998 V70 XC and a 1993 940 (non-
turbo). I was offered by a wealthy relative a custom-built 1996
Mercury Grand Marquis Bayshore with not even 65,000 miles, all for
free, provided I pay the simple registration charge (about $50 here in
MD). But I can only keep two cars, it isn't economically possible for
me to have more than that. But which should I get rid of? [ ... ]
Any opinons? Which should go?
Click to expand...

If you experience frequent winter storms that require a 4WD vehicle,
keep the V70 XC. Otherwise, keep the 940.


Gary
 
Robert said:
Hi all,

Here's the deal. I currently have a 1998 V70 XC and a 1993 940 (non-
turbo). I was offered by a wealthy relative a custom-built 1996
Mercury Grand Marquis Bayshore with not even 65,000 miles, all for
free, provided I pay the simple registration charge (about $50 here in
MD). But I can only keep two cars, it isn't economically possible for
me to have more than that. But which should I get rid of?


Any opinons? Which should go?
Click to expand...

The XC is probably going to be the most costly of the three to keep
going. That vintage of Volvo all wheel drive cars, IMO, isn't nearly as
trouble free as the well sorted '93 940 or the Grand Marquis. The Grand
Marquis in Crown Victoria taxi form goes many hundreds of thousands of
brutal miles.

Is the 940 a wagon? If not, that might tilt the scales towards keeping
the V70 simply because there are times when a station wagon is very,
very handy to have. Our oldest car is a '93 240 wagon, and it does some
kind of hauling duty at least a few times per month. Most recently it
brought home the panels with which I will make a new set of iron
railings for the front steps and the Ikea desk which will soon be
serving as homework central.
 
The Mercury I love, and so far for my uncle it's been extremely
reliable. It has a 5.0 litre Lincoln engine and any bells and whistles
you could imagine,
Click to expand...

What's its CO2 output?

E.
 
The 940 is indeed a sedan. That's one of the problems with getting rid
of the V70...we love the convience of having a wagon for long trips.
 
Greenhouse gas emmissions are probably somewhere between 10 and 11
tons per year, according to fueleconomy.gov. For the regular 4.6 litre
Mercury engine it would be about 9.2 tons per year. But it gets the
same gas mileage as my 1993 940, so I'm not too terribly concerned
about much else environmentally.
 
Greenhouse gas emmissions are probably somewhere between 10 and 11
tons per year, according to fueleconomy.gov. For the regular 4.6 litre
Mercury engine it would be about 9.2 tons per year. But it gets the
same gas mileage as my 1993 940, so I'm not too terribly concerned
about much else environmentally.
 
eastender said:
@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:




Tell that to the next generation.
Click to expand...
WEll he said they get about the same mileage, so between the two in that
respect he shouldn't be too terribly concerned unless it makes a difference.
 
WEll he said they get about the same mileage, so between the two in
that respect he shouldn't be too terribly concerned unless it makes a
difference.
Click to expand...

I'd expect a 5 litre engine to pump out more CO2 and really we should'nt be
driving such cars now.

E.
 
eastender said:
I'd expect a 5 litre engine to pump out more CO2 and really we should'nt be
driving such cars now.

E.
Click to expand...

The amount of CO2 output is directly, 100% related to how much fuel you
burn. So same mileage = same CO2 output.

--
Mike F.
Thornhill (near Toronto), Ont.

Replace tt with t (twice!) and remove parentheses to email me directly.
(But I check the newsgroup more often than this email address.)
 
eastender said:
What's its CO2 output?

E.
Click to expand...

One part carbon, two parts oxygen. ;-)

I feel that burning fossil fuels is perhaps the only thing of lasting value
humans have ever done for Planet Earth. Since life first appeared, organisms
have collected carbon and taken it underground with them when they died.
Surface carbon has been progressively depleted for eons, and although we can
only restore a tiny fraction of it (the vast majority of fossil carbon is in
the form of sedimentary carbonates) we should do what we can.

Mike
 
Well...while we're on the topic...

I really don't care too much about the environment, basically just my
bottom line. Call me blind, I don't care, but as long as they get
equal gas mileage that's the only thing that DIRECTLY affects how much
money I'm spending, environmentally speaking. Yes, I do buy only
Energy Star appliances, etc., but that's just because they're cheaper
to run. This is pretty much the way that America is -- if hybrid/
electric cars had the same initial cost and insane rebates that the
gas guzzlers that Detroit is pumping out have, I'm sure we'd all be in
them for our next car. But when you're asking us to part with our
money, our profit, just so we can say that the air doesn't get one
degree warmer? It just isn't economically practical to me.

As far as I'm concerned, selling the Volvo V70XC nets us about a
$9,000 dollar profit. Selling the Mercury nets a $4,000 dollar profit,
and selling the Volvo 940 would be a $3,000 dollar profit. Plus the
Mercury and the 940 aren't anywhere near as expensive as the V70 in
terms of repair; they all get about equal gas mileage (slight
differences of 1-2 miles per gallon don't matter much to me) and I
like them all.

We still haven't registered the Merc so it's all still up in the air,
but if I had to decide which one should go it would definitely be the
V70XC. Economically speaking, it seems to be the best option.
 
John said:
The XC is probably going to be the most costly of the three to keep
going. That vintage of Volvo all wheel drive cars, IMO, isn't nearly as
trouble free as the well sorted '93 940 or the Grand Marquis. The Grand
Marquis in Crown Victoria taxi form goes many hundreds of thousands of
brutal miles.

Is the 940 a wagon? If not, that might tilt the scales towards keeping
the V70 simply because there are times when a station wagon is very,
very handy to have. Our oldest car is a '93 240 wagon, and it does some
kind of hauling duty at least a few times per month. Most recently it
brought home the panels with which I will make a new set of iron
railings for the front steps and the Ikea desk which will soon be
serving as homework central.
Click to expand...

I havn't much experience of the XC but 850 / V70s in the UK have not
lasted anywhere near aswell as 940s.

940s are solid inside and out, after 10 years they can still look new
(bar accident damage and fashion). They are galvanised and will not
rust (mostly). And still after abusive owners. This is the last well
(over?) engineered Volvo. This is what people need.

850s, on the other hand, look the same as Fords do after 5 years, paint
is faded they have started to rust and bits are breaking off the inside,
winder mechanisms breaking, major engine faults, suspension gets tired
very quickly. Only cars cared for and used with kid gloves really last
well. This is what people want and is more profitable for car makers.

Volvo having built up a name for reliability is now supplying cars the
same as everyone else and divesting the brand, with a much lower
intended lifetime. Although they are more refined, quieter and lighter.
 
OK...so far, between this group and the Ford group, I have five votes
for getting rid of the V70XC, two votes for getting rid of the
Mercury, and no votes for getting rid of the 940. Keep them coming in,
I'll post as soon as we make a decision!

Thanks guys for all the support and guidance.
 
eastender said:
I'd expect a 5 litre engine to pump out more CO2 and really we should'nt be
driving such cars now.

E.
Click to expand...


As would I, but if the fuel economy is the same, the CO2 is the same.
 
Here's the latest update:

We've decided to take the Mercury and sell the V70XC (thanks for all
the advice, guys). We're getting it titled tomorrow, and taking the
V70XC to CarMax sometime soon...I'll update with whatever we get for
it. We're looking for something in the $7,000-8,000 range -- we paid
$9,000 for the car a little less than two years ago, and we've only
put on 6,000 miles, so it seems pretty reasonable.

Look for an update soon!
 
Here's the latest update:

We've decided to take the Mercury and sell the V70XC (thanks for all
the advice, guys). We're getting it titled tomorrow, and taking the
V70XC to CarMax sometime soon...I'll update with whatever we get for
it. We're looking for something in the $7,000-8,000 range -- we paid
$9,000 for the car a little less than two years ago, and we've only
put on 6,000 miles, so it seems pretty reasonable.

Look for an update soon!
Click to expand...

OK, long-due update 2:

CarMax offered us only $2500...apparently, and I quote, "AWD Volvos
aren't currently in demand." This is the day after we have about half
a foot of snow. Oh well.

So now we're going to attempt to sell it private-party ourselves.
Anyone interested? We're looking in the $7500+ range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top