Good morning! Today, for the letter V, I’m taking the easy way out, and taking the two obvious choices. But we’re going back to a time when they were simple, square, and durable as all get-out. They’re the same relatively low price, too.
Hopefully that will result in a more fair matchup than yesterday. Sure, everybody loves the roach coach on Taco Tuesday, but nobody wants to buy their own and fix it up. Almost nobody, anyway. Honestly, I can’t blame you; that thing is wildly overpriced. I was just amused by the existence of a site called Used Food Trucks.
Besides, who says no to a Unimog? It’s one of those mythical vehicles for us American gearheads, the sort of car you discover the existence of and you become obsessed with for a while, knowing that it’s unlikely you’ll ever see one in person. Well, if you’ve got twenty-four grand plus a ticket to Denver, here’s your chance!
All right, let’s get back to something simpler and more familiar. Today we’ve got two four-door sedans, one from Germany and one from Sweden, both with simple overhead-cam engines and manual transmissions. They’re fun to drive in their own way, and with a little care and feeding, they both might just run forever. Let’s check them out.
1982 Volvo 244 DL – $3,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.1 liter overhead cam inline 4, four-speed manual + overdrive, RWD
Location: Bellingham, WA
Odometer reading: 189,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
The Volvo 240 is one of those cars I always assumed I’d end up owning someday, but the time has never been right. I’ve driven a few, and a couple of friends have had them, but the right car was never in the right place at the right time for me. It’s as unlikely an enthusiast’s car as there ever was: it’s not fast, it’s not a great handler (though it’s not terrible either), and it has all the style of a file cabinet. Yet, car folks almost universally seem to love these things. They were cheap and plentiful for years, but now good ones are becoming scarce, and prices are going up.
The heart of the 240 series is Volvo’s “Red Block” engine, which came in quite a few sizes and configurations over the years. This one has the basic B21F version, with Bosch fuel injection, good for a little over a hundred horses. The seller lists this car as having a five-speed manual, but that’s not quite true; it has a four-speed with an electric overdrive unit activated by a push-button on the shift knob. It runs and drives great, and it just had the engine compartment wiring redone.
There’s no mistaking 80s Volvo seats, with those hollow headrests – that’s a safety feature, by the way; Volvo did that to improve visibility out the back. It’s cheaper and more reliable than a camera, that’s for sure. It looks good inside, with just a little wear on the driver’s seat. In the dash is an Audiovox aftermarket tape deck that’s probably been in there since Reagan was in office. No word on whether it still works.
You don’t see too many of these in bright red; I think it suits it. I’m not usually much of a fan of red cars, but this one has enough trim on it to pull it off. It has a few blemishes, but hardly anything worth mentioning. It’s worth taking a peek underneath to make sure it isn’t rusty; this car spent its life in the San Juan Islands, and salt sea air is almost as bad as salty roads.
1987 Volkswagen Jetta GLI – $3,500
Engine/drivetrain: 1.8 liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Odometer reading: 269,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well, but has a clicky CV joint
Everybody knows the Volkswagen GTI. The sporty version of VW’s Rabbit and Golf is a legend, a fun-to-drive little hatchback that first graced our shores here in the US in 1983. But in 1985, with the introduction of the second generation, the GTI gained a sibling – the Jetta GLI. It has the same suspension upgrades, the same fat tires, and the same subtle red trim as the GTI, only with a trunk. And in those days, if you wanted the sporty one, a manual transmission was mandatory.
A little more power was also part of the GLI recipe, as well as shorter gearing for a little more acceleration. More power was on the horizon when this car was built, but it just missed out – in mid-year 1987 the GLI switched to a twin-cam 16-valve engine and gained about 20 horsepower in the process. No matter; this car has done fine with less power. It has 269,000 miles and counting, and it runs great, though it starts a little hard when cold; a faulty cold-start valve is a common problem with these. It also is in need of one new CV joint. A new axle is included; the seller just hasn’t gotten around to doing it yet.
It’s in pretty good shape inside, but the seller does note a few things. The headliner has been removed, and the sunroof has been sealed shut. The front seats look good, but they don’t match the rear seat; I think they’re from a newer VW.
It has a few flaws outside, but no rust, and no major damage. The pebble-finish black plastic trim on these cars always looks like hell; it fades to gray in the sun, and woe be unto you if you accidentally get any wax on it. It’ll never come off. The wheels aren’t original – maybe they came from the same newer Jetta as the seats. But they do look good on there.
I thought these two might make for a nice little reprieve from the weird and expensive shit that I may have to resort to in order to get us through the rest of the alphabet. They’re both nice, honest, no-nonsense European sedans from back when they really knew how to build ’em. Which one would you welcome into your garage?
“V”DAY…yay! This was “V”ery easy too…I really like both but gotta go “V”W since I used to have an 84 Jetta that was a blast to drive (also 83 Rabbit GTI) I’ve always loved these cars along w/ the 80’s Hondas. I had to replace the CV joint on mine too…it’s no big deal. That interior is in great shape! (- the headliner) It took me a while to gain appreciation for the “V”olvo wagons/sedans that are so iconic and legendary but now I like them more
Easily the Volvo, and I’m not even a fan of the 200-series.
Just about anyone who votes for the undesirable VW is almost certainly either trolling or exceptionally biased.
I’ll bite. I voted VW, and I’m as biased as they come- I’m a huge fan of the 200 series. I’ve owned 5 of them, including the one in my profile image.
I literally owned this exact same Volvo- 1982 DL, carb’d B21, 4 speed + OD, red enamel paint, and beige interior. Only difference? Mine was the more desirable wagon.
It was a beautiful car, and a crowd pleaser. You could pull up anywhere, and any bystander with eyes had already decided they liked you. I drove that 245 up the mountains and across the country. It moved me to my first apartment. I was driving it when I first met my wife. Lots of nostalgia to say the least, so this matchup hits pretty close to home.
Ultimately I moved on, because it was severely underpowered. It became frustrating to daily, and aside from maintaining some charming period aesthetic, it wasn’t engaging enough to keep as an enthusiast vehicle.
If I could sum it up, I would say It’s the kind of car people like to admire someone else driving.
The VW MkII on the other hand, is just fun. Even the base models chirp the tires through multiple gears, and handle like big go-karts. The interior design is a decade newer, and the materials feel better.
The Volvo 240 is a great chassis with huge potential, and while I could list a hundred ways in which it is superior, it just won’t match the VW for driving enjoyment without thousands of dollars in suspension upgrades, some sort of sport seats, and the addition of a turbo.
Both are very reasonably priced – Only the Volvo will be cheap and easy to maintain, and will most likely last longer.
Depends if you’re looking for fun (Jetta,) or class/dependability.
My vote goes to the Volvo mainly because it looks like it needs little to nothing. Though it was a close call as the GLI is a more fun ride. But this example needs work.
And the Volvo has a lot of old school charm… right down to the overdrive button on the shifter.
I’ve owned multiples of both of these cars, and love them both. But the Volvo looks to be in better shape than the VW, so that got my vote. But in similar condition, it would very much be a coin toss and I would be happy with either one. Though too bad the Volvo isn’t the more useful wagon – but then the price would probably be doubled.
Volkswagon here. Both are pretty likely to be problematic due to the Jetronic injection. and both are likely to have very few parts available in the US, but perhaps the VW will have one or two more available?
There are pretty much zero parts availability issues for Volvo 240s, though you may not like the prices of some of them. I have been out of the VW scene long enough to not know whether it’s an issue for mechanical parts for this era, but I kind of doubt it’s much of a problem given how many were sold and how many parts they shared up and down the line and across other makes. A LOT of them was bought in from the major Euro suppliers. The hard stuff for either one is interior trim bits and whatnot. The sparky and greasy bits are easy.
I think parts availability is pretty solid for Volvo 240s – they were made for 2 decades, and there are a million of them in the states. It may be slightly dependent on which part of the US you live in, but drop-shipping is pretty prevalent, and the parts are definitely out there.
I voted for the Volvo because it’s the better deal, but I’d actually buy the VW. Poor investment, and I’d prefer a Golf, but I’d actually drive it.
That Volvo actually looks NICE, on the other hand the VW looks like a pile.
Volvo all the way. Just too bad it’s not a wagon.
The real reason I voted Volvo is practicality; it’s been worked on, it’s modifiable, at 189k that’s barely anything (both of my friend’s 240s have over 400k miles on them on the original drivetrains)….it’s a forever car.
That said the 8v and driving dynamics of that particular era of Jetta are fantastic, it’ll get 27-30mpg all day long, they’re easy to work on—but at 250+k that is making my hackles rise about repairs and parts/maintenace/reliability. I had a 200k GTI of the same vintage—one of the best cars I’ve ever had—but it had some weird motronic stuff start happening to it pretty quickly and after a not horrible crash it was totalled out. The Volvo on the other hand is a classic and will never lose value if it ain’t rusted
Yeah, I just don’t like cars on grass, unless it’s at some event, you never know how long they’ve been on damp ground, so it’s gonna be the boring VW with the ugly wheels for me (shrugging emoji)
If that Volvo were close to me, I’d already be on my way to look at it. I don’t really need another car but I love 240s and that one looks to be in excellent condition! I’ll bet it’s gone by Friday.
Volvo, absolutely no question. That’s pretty similar to my grandmother’s last car, just a different color.
Volvo.
That was easy.
Have to go with the Volvo on this one – my brother got almost this exact Jetta after he totaled our family’s MT-5 Taurus. His was only 12 years old with half this many miles at the time and let’s just say it didn’t lead to future VW purchases by anyone in the family. Can’t imagine it is much improved with another 20+ years and 130K miles although the price is right for both cars today.
A couple things under the hood of the VW bother me, like a coolant reservoir that looks empty and some weird blob between the washer bottle and the battery. Ultimately though Volkswagens during those years run forever and a Volvo sedan makes as much sense as a diesel Prius. I’ll take the GLI.
I’ve owned 40+ Volvo 240s. Twenty years ago, I had a side hustle of buying dead ones and either fixing them up or parting them out.
We don’t get an engine shot, but I believe this 1981 model still has Bosch K-Jet, which is better than the LH-Jetronic 1.0 seen in some 1982 cars.
Setting aside that I’m a former Certified Volvo Nutâ„¢, I’d take a Volvo with almost 200k versus a VW with almost 300k every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Gee , nobody put this in?
https://youtu.be/865xrejSC6I
If I HAVE to choose, I’ll take the Volvo sedan, then find some Portlander who wants to trade it for a wagon. Always wanted a Volvo wagon.
What better color for a brick is there than red? That Volvo could smoosh the Jetta flat and drive away unscathed like “damn they really need to do something about these potholes”.
I prefer vehicles with working door handles, so the Jetta is out.
If you do not get the “boxy but good” reference: https://youtu.be/GTJZEK4JP0k?si=GokVj1QfPPYjr5la it is from an OLD movie.
Way to make those of us who consider 1990 to be “a few years ago” feel old. 🙂
I saw Jaws when it was released at a drive in. I am old. 🙂
Dude, I saw Dr No. I must small like dried pee and liverwurst farts by now.
Damn, I remembered the tagline and Dudley Moore, but I didn’t remember the sex-shaming bit of it. Eesh
Few of us remember the rampant misogyny and homophobia and 80s movies.
I’ve been revisiting a bunch of them lately and it’s shocking? I used to wonder why I stayed in the closet til I was 32. Then I watched all these films…ugh
What about the categories where both cars overlap?
V for Venn-Jetta, if you will.
Volvo, even though I owned a nearly identical one (in green) 30-something years ago. The Bosch fuel injection was finicky on my car, but the rest of the car was a tank. I still sort of kick myself for ever parting with it, though at the time I had no choice but to do so.
It’s most likely the wrong choice, but we’ll take the Vee-Dub (Representing Deutschland! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1MNEqCr748) … the GLI was the car I should have bought when I graduated college. The Volvo’s good, but I prefer my Swedes from Trollhattan.
Trollhattan is long gone and as I too love Saab, this Volvo is fantastic. I would buy it today but according to my spouse I would have to sell one of my other old toys….
The Volvo seems like a great deal at $3500; I voted for it without even reading about the Jetta. My one objection to the Volvo is the color, though. I view the Volvo 240 as the antithesis of a sports car, so bright colors seem out of place. The car otherwise seems like a great example of a 240 at this price point, at least based on the information available.
I am a big fan of the Volvo 240. My first car was a beige 240 GL my dad bought new when I was 3. That car was also my brother’s first car as well as the first car for two of my cousins. As it was the first car for multiple upper midwestern teenagers with questionable driving skills, that car led a hard life. It still lasted ~25 years and well over 300,000 miles before it was sent to the scrap yard with innumerable dents, a missing fender, multiple missing trim pieces, and structural rust.
I generally don’t have nostalgia for cars previously owned by myself or family, but the Volvo 240 is the exception. I probably would pass on this car due to the color, but if I would pay quite a bit more than $3500 for a beige 240 sedan in this condition.
It’s not red like a sports car it’s red like a brick. It’s all about perspective.
Even if some bricks are red, Swedish bricks look best in silver, beige, or white.
I stand by my opinion that this color is wrong for this car.
I like 240s best in the various poop shades of the 70s. Poop brown, poop beige, poop blue, poop yellow. You know what I mean. 🙂
My oldest 240 was a ’76 242 DL in poop blue. No power steering or A/C, but it had overdrive and a sunroof. My newest was a very nice silver ’91 245 when it was only 5 years old. Sadly an automatic, but it had air. In between was a truly terrible used up ’82 245 Turbo in black that was a heap of poo, but fun when it ran. My 11 740/940/960s were MUCH better cars than the 240s. But I still love the old 240s – I would really like another early 240 as a toy.
Under the heading of how things have changed – that ’76 was only 12 years old when I bought it, and it was a rusty, pretty used up old car ran great until the motor seized out of the blue one day at about 200K. Today, my daily driver Mercedes is now 11 years old, and still feels fresh, albeit with a lot fewer miles. The good old days weren’t that good.