Welcome back! Today we’re looking at two examples of a car that is just turning the corner from old beater to up-and-coming classic – Volvo’s boxy-but-good 240 series. but first, let’s see who won yesterday’s cheaper-than-a-toy-car battle:
Well, that Saturn just ran rings around every other choice, didn’t it? (Sorry, had to.) And twice as many people want a re-issue of a 1980s model car as want a real 1980s Chrysler. Ouch.
The Volvo 240 is one of those cars I’ve almost bought a few times, but never actually got around to owning. I’ve worked on a bunch of them, and driven a few, and had friends who owned them, but every time I looked at one for myself, I ended buying something else. And I might have missed my chance. They’ve been cheap forever, but now the prices are starting to creep up on nicer examples. But a rising tide lifts all boats, as they say, and like the BMW E30s before them, as prices on the nice cars go up, so do prices on the shitboxes. These cars are both a lot more expensive than they would have been even five years ago. Are they worth it? Let’s check them out and see.
1979 Volvo 242 DL – $2,950
Engine/drivetrain: 2.1 liter overhead cam inline 4, four-speed manual with overdrive, RWD
Location: Coppell, TX
Odometer reading: 454,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yep, but not sure how well
First – this is not a coupe, despite appearances. This is an extinct bodystyle known as a two-door sedan. There was a Volvo 240 coupe – the 262C, styled by Bertone, with a love-it-or-hate-it chopped and vinyl-covered roof (personally, I hate it), but this one has the exact same interior dimensions and roofline as the four-door sedan. There was a sportier version of this car as well, known as the 242 GT, but this isn’t one of those either. It’s just a lowly DL model. The nomenclature is important when talking about these cars, because while they all look alike, there are differences under the skin.
What most of them do have in common is Volvo’s “Redblock” engine, a sturdy unit that isn’t known for massive power (though the turbo versions are all right), but it has a reputation for piling on the miles. This car has almost half a million of them, mostly from its first owner. The current owner claims to not drive it much, “because of the Bosch fuel injection.” I don’t know if that means it runs poorly, or the seller just has something against fuel injection, but they do say it runs and drives.
It has held up pretty well, it looks like – the seller notes some rust repair, and one door doesn’t match, but it’s straight and intact. I like the wheels on it, too; I don’t know enough about the minutiae of Volvo variants to know if they’re original, or aftermarket, or from some other Volvo model, but they look sharp on there.
Inside, it looks clean, but these 240s tend to be such ships of Theseus after a while that it’s hard to know how much in there is original. As a side note, I’ve never known quite what to make of the dashboard in these cars. It’s such a big industrial-looking slab of plastic, at odds with the pseudo-luxury image that these cars got in the US in the 1980s. And I hear it’s a nightmare to work on anything behind there.
1985 Volvo 240 DL wagon – $3,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.3 liter overhead cam inline 4, four-speed manual with overdrive, RWD
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Odometer reading: 268,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yes, but has some issues
If you’re looking for a little more practicality and cargo capacity with your redblock engine, here we have a 240 DL wagon. By this time, the 240 had received a facelift, with a raised center section in the hood, and four rectangular headlights on US models. It also got a bump in engine displacement to 2.3 liters, but retained the four-speed stick with a push-button electric overdrive; I think by this point only the Volvo 240 and the Chevy Corvette still had this anachronism.
This car is by no means stock; it has been lowered, but it sounds like it was done the proper way by replacing parts, not by torching the springs like so many shadetree hacks have done. Less impressive is the probably-way-too-loud aftermarket exhaust. Seriously – why install a cutout on a four-cylinder Volvo? It has had a bunch of electrical work done as well, but apparently not enough; the seller says it occasionally stalls, especially under load. More troubleshooting is warranted, I think.
Inside, this one is a little scruffier than the 242, but still not bad. The seller does note some troubles with the front window regulators, and some other electrical issues inside. It sounds like the overdrive button might be non-functional, and the reverse lockout is “broken.” I don’t know if that means you can’t shift to reverse, or if the safety lockout just isn’t there anymore. Normally you lift the ring under the shift knob to access reverse on these.
Outside, how it looks depends on what angle you see it from. The left front fender and door don’t match the rest of the car, and the left rear door handle is absent (the seller says he has it). In this rear three-quarter view, however, it looks pretty good. I guess I have to give the seller kudos for not trying to hide the flaws.
Both of these cars are going to need some tinkering, but that’s true of almost every inexpensive 240 I’ve seen for sale. The trouble is that, personally, I think these should be less expensive than they even are. But I guess that’s what happens when a car gets “discovered” and makes that turn from old to classic. These are the two desirable body styles, and they’re both manuals, which command higher prices than automatics. But three grand and mismatched body panels? I don’t know; is either of them worth it to you?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
242 for Me! This coupé is da bomb for me! I find its design very appealing!
ALSO per the sellers ad: “Engine was replaced with same era by original owner”
So, the engine does not has 500K miles on it!!
That was enough to flip me to the 242. I wanted to like the wagon, but the coupé looks a little more honest. Well, the wagon is honest, but it’s not my approach to a non-turbo Volvo.
the Wagon lost me at the “racing” parts in the replacement parts list. nobody is racing a wagon, so don’t think lightweight junk means it works better in the real world
I will never cease to be mystified by that dumbass mentality. “I’ll spend a bunch of money on ‘performance’ parts for a dull car, instead of just putting that money toward a car that can actually perform.”
I have always liked the Volvo Bertone (AKA, 262C) I remember seeing them on the road when I was a wee lad and I admired them back then.
If I ever see one for sale that is an unmolested example, I will surely snatch it up.
I really wanted to pick the long roof, but seeing as I consider electricity to be one step removed from magic, I picked the 2 door.
The wagon for me. But having said that, I think both of these are only worth about half of their asking prices.
Despite the good memories I associate with the wagon, I’m going 2-door here, just for styling points and the fact that it is less messed with. Put a little shine on it, drive it til it dies, fix it, drive it again. Just an all-round stylish daily.
I’m going with the 242. I have always liked 242 styling – I think it is the best looking 240 variant. I would like to see more pictures of the interior, but this car looks like it would be a nice vehicle with a moderately priced paint job. I would really like to know some more details about what is going on with the fuel injection, though. The seller seems to be implying there is something inherently wrong with the fuel injection in these vehicles. I don’t believe that since my first car was an ’87 240 and that car was mostly trouble free for 300,000 miles despite not being treated well (it was the first car for me, my brother, and a few cousins; I was the only one who didn’t abuse it). I presume this particular car is just broken, and once fixed it will be fine for another few hundred thousand miles.
I also like the wagon, though. I might be in the minority here, but I think it looks good lowered. I’m suspicious of modified vehicles like everyone else, but I don’t think that would keep me from buying this car. While I think the 242 is the better purchase, the wagon is also not bad for the price.
Higher miles vs. someone else’s project…I’ll take the less common 2-door.
Heart says Wagon, Brain says sedan/coupe/2 door/still a cool ride.
Black “Thing” wins.
Between this and your dislike of the M-B 500/560 SECs you expressed last week, I think we can safely say that you, Mark, are an anti-coupite!
I already daily an ‘88 240 sedan, so the wagon is my choice. I’ve already repaired the reverse lockout on my car and all it took was a dirt cheap shifter rebuild kit from IPD and few minutes of disassembly and reassembly. The lockout itself is a small plastic nub that wears down over time. The electrical gremlins may be a bigger challenge, but I am patient.
Ooof, the Kobayashi Maru of Volvo choices. I like the bricks and would love to do a V8lvo swap on one, but the prices vs conditions and miles, yikes!!! Gun to my head, I’ll take the
coupe2-door sedan since a) it appears to be owned by a genuine Volvo lover, b) Coppell is just a few hours drive away, and c) Prancing Moose on the wheel hubs!!!I learned to drive stick on a 242 DL, and boy could that Bosch fuel injection be a pain. Some days the car would start and run just fine, other days the car would refuse to start, and other days it would start fine and then refuse to run for more than a minute. It’s not an impossible fix, but at this point it is swapping components of all dubious reliability around hoping to make it work.
I would usually vote for the wagon, but hearing that it’s “had electrical work done” and “still needs more” made me pass. As a lot of people with older cars can tell you, previous owner wiring jobs are often disasters waiting to happen. Not to mention the exhaust, and potential other previous owner “improvements.” I’ll take more years and miles rather than dealing with that shit.
I like the earlier look of the 242 and the lack of electrical gremlins.
Hands down the 242. It may be rough, but it’s priced accordingly. The Bosch fuel injection was a calculator trying to run Doom, so none of them work well. And the odometer actually works! Which is rare on these things. Not a lot of these popping up fairly rust free anymore, for a Volvo person in the rust belt it’s probably worth it to drive down there.
Wagon is cool, and it comes with BC’s which are alright. The thing is, there is still a ton of these that owners really loved and cared for. Personally the prices should probably be swapped here. You can find decent 240s for around 2k on good days. This being the most common model, there is nothing to really justify the higher price.
Upvote for the Bosch FI joke.
Let’s hear it for two-door sedans. My 142 was the same dark blue.
Normally, I’m an “all-wagon-all-the-time” guy, but there’s a couple things going for that 242, so hear me out. First, it has Sunburst alloys, easily one of the best wheels Volvo ever offered. Second, look at that premium velour upholstery. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Lastly, it has one of the most attractive and, somehow simultaneously, endearing grilles you could get on a Volvo. In all of these ways, it is superior to today’s wagon offering.
has to be the wagon for me
The longer, lower, louder wagon is a no from me, dawg. Too much of other people’s work to deal with/undo. The sedan wins by default, despite the injection-related issues.
Wow. A flatnose 242, that’s in better condition, and cheaper, and people are really out here making a case that the wagon is the one to go with. Unreal.
It even still has its Lambda badge in the grille! (It was to advertise that it had the latest in new engine management technology – an O2 sensor).
This is a big nope from me on both, I went for the wagon just because it’s more practical and has half the miles, but there is no world in which I would be willing to pay more than $1500ish for either of these with the issues they have.
Oooh a pair of Volvos, and right before my birthday, too.
Both show some minor touches that show their owners are enthusiasts. Namely the “Prancing Moose” wheel center caps and key chain on the coupe (it has 2 doors, I’m calling it a coupe), and the European “Redblock” license plate on the wagon.
I voted wagon: I’m more familiar with the 2.3L and it looks like it has the Bosch fuel injection on it, which I’m also familiar with from the 2 700-series wagons I had a while ago. Fewer miles, more practicality, and seems like it should be reasonably straightforward to sort the transmission foibles. I’m not a huge fan of dropped vehicles but they picked a height that accentuates the horizontal lines of the car. The mismatched left front corner adds some character. I also appreciate the lack of lugge rack on the roof.
The coupe isn’t a bad choice, and I appreciate the round-eye look of the early 240s and the 140s. The mileage doesn’t bother me, either. It also seems better cared-for, but if I’m getting a Volvo with fewer than 5 doors it’ll be a C30 or 1800ES. If it has to have a Redblock then it’d be a 780.
As soon as I read that the 240 was lowered (however tastefully) I stopped reading right away and picked the 242. I’m a SAAB guy but would not pass up a straight Volvo if it appeared before me!
Gimme the round lights.
+1. I’ve always enjoyed them for seeming to serve as the bridge between ’60s and ’70s Volvo styling.
The Wagon for me, mostly one color.
I never understood why there was an overdrive and not just a lower rear differential gear. BTW, had a 82 Volvo Turbo wagon. White with a buttery tan interior. Wish I still had it.