On today’s Shitbox Showdown, we’re looking at two cars with lots of miles. How many? A hundred thousand? Two hundred? Nope. Our two contestants have covered more than seven hundred thousand miles between them. Have they got enough life left to give to be worth it? We’ll see in a minute.
First, let’s see how yesterday turned out.
Well, color me surprised. I honestly expected the little Civic to walk away with this one. I know I’d really rather have the Buick, but I didn’t expect most of you would agree. But there it is. Just barely.
Now: I’m no stranger to cars with high miles. My Toyota is just about to hit 260,000 miles, and my truck is sitting at 208,000. I’ve had a Miata that was over 250,000, and a Nissan Pathfinder whose odometer broke and was replaced with a junkyard unit, but was somewhere north of 360,000 when we gave up and sold it (but it still ran and drove). High mileage, to me, just means a car has been good at its job, so it has been asked to do it a lot.
But at some point, you have to start to question how many more trips around the world a car has got left in it. And it’s not just engines and drivetrains, or body rust: My Toyota’s high-beam headlight switch is worn out, and the driver’s seat has almost no padding left. I’ve had plenty of cars whose keys could be taken out of the ignition with it running. These things may “run forever” if you take care of them, but at some point they stop being nice enough to bother fixing. Are these two cars at that point? Let’s take a look and see what you think.
1996 Volvo 850 Wagon – $1,200
Engine/drivetrain: 2.4 liter DOHC inline 5, 5 speed manual, FWD
Location: Lakewood, CO
Odometer reading: 405,855 miles
Runs/drives? Yes, but runs rough and failed emissions
Volvos of a certain age have a reputation for durability. It’s not uncommon to see old 240s and 740s with a 2 or a 3 as the first digit of the odometer (when the odometer works). The old red-block engines just run and run, and the rest of the car wears like iron as well. I hadn’t heard the same reports of durability from the later front-wheel-drive 850 models, but it seems they are capable of racking up the miles as well.
Yep, that’s right: Four hundred thousand miles. And frankly, for that many miles, it looks pretty damn good. There isn’t much visible wear inside, and the exterior looks clean and rust-free. If it has been a Colorado car all along, that makes sense; Colorado doesn’t use road salt.
The seller says the car drives fine, but runs a bit rough. There is a list of recently-replaced parts in the ad, many of which should have cured rough running. But the one thing I don’t see listed is the catalytic converter. If the converter is plugged up, that could cause the rough running, and also make it fail emissions. New converters are available for around $400 from Rock Auto, which, if that cures the problem, makes this a pretty good bargain.
Of course, all those miles do take their toll on every part of the car. A good thorough inspection is a good idea, to uncover any hidden surprises. But it’s a cheap stickshift Volvo wagon, which is nearly universally a good thing.
1999 Ford F150 Lariat 4×4 – $1,400
Engine/drivetrain: 5.4 liter SOHC V8, 4 speed automatic, part-time 4WD
Location: Forest Lake, MN
Odometer reading: 303,838 miles
Runs/drives? Yes, but needs brake and front end work
Here it is, the best-selling vehicle in America since, what, the Civil War? Ford sells a couple thousand of these things per day, and has for years. This tenth-generation F150 was a major redesign after sixteen years, to a softer look and a smoother, more car-like ride, as well as a more car-like interior.
This is a 4 door truck, but the rear doors are “suicide” doors, opening at the front, with no center post between them and the front doors, similar to the Saturn Ion and SC coupes, and the Honda Element. These doors give a ton of access to the back seat, but are kind of a pain in the ass in parking lots, since the rear doors can’t be opened unless the fronts are open, so the doors themselves get in your way.
The Ford F-series has a good reputation for durability as well, as long as it has been well-maintained. This one has been in the same family since new, and has been worked hard, but well cared-for. The seller says it currently could use ball joints and brakes, but it runs and drives well as-is.
The “Minnesota weight reduction program” has been hard at work on this truck; the seller says the rocker panels are rusted away. But it’s cheap enough to not care about such things; you could use it as a winter beater with 4WD for a couple years yet.
Generally, I feel like high-mileage cars are a safer bet than low-mileage ones. Cars are meant to be driven, not left to sit around, and exercise is as good for them as it is for us. But at what point does “worn” become “worn out”? Both of these cars need a little work. Which one is more worth the effort?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Rusted cab corners, a wiring short that will be hard to find, needs more than the price just in parts to fix the suspension….
That F-150 is a $1000 parts truck. $500 if the bed is rusty. $200 if the tailgate is rusty.
Nobody should drive it as-is. You’ll be a danger to others. And it’s not worth fixing when you can just buy a better one.
Price drop to $900!
Still. Plenty of better ones in the area for ~$3-4k. Which is where you will end up getting this one road-worthy.
“If it has been a Colorado car all along, that makes sense; Colorado doesn’t use road salt.”
Long-time CO resident here: Sorry Mark, but we definitely do use road salt. In the Denver Metro area, which is where Lakewood is located, and in Colorado Springs, they use liquid magnesium chloride, which is actually worse for rust, at least chemically speaking. Outside the metro area, where I live, they use a mix of regular road salt and sand. I think the major factor is that Colorado doesn’t have persistent winter weather – even in the middle of winter, we get 60F-degree days. And because of the altitude, the snow tends to sublimate rather than sticking around as a nasty salt-filled slush. So we have the opportunity to wash away that road salt much more often than Michiganders, etc.
Oh, and I voted for the Volvo. My son drives a very similar 2001 V70 with NA 2.5L motor. We owned it prior to giving it to him when it was totaled for hail damage (just cosmetic – nothing structural). It’s got nearly 300K miles on it and it runs great. From experience, the problem with this one is most likely either the cat or the O2 sensor. Easy fix either way and it’s ready to roll.
I passed on both, but completely agree with you otherwise. I was born and raised in the suburbs of Detroit and can testify to that mess. I’ve been here in Denver for almost 30 years and can also testify to the sunny day, mid-winter car washes. What I don’t know is where those Volvo pictures were taken. It certainly wasn’t here in Lakewood.
Tough call as I have 3 five cylinder Volvos but need a truck- I had the 10 valve automatic version of this 850 and it had 630000km on it when I sold it- the engine had never been opened up nor the transmission.
Ford because that screams winter beater.
*gasp* It’s the illusive small truck that everyone here swears they want. Surely it will be the one to…oh yeah totally didn’t see that result coming.
F-150 will be easier to source parts for and be easier to work on in general. No question.
That F150 is not a small truck. Might not be a “big truck” but it’s objectively large
I voted Volvo because of A: the number of new parts, B: the considerably lower amount of rust, and C: the transmission. Yes it’s higher-mileage, but on shitboxes I’d take high mileage over rust.
At this mileage, you’re going to need parts for either. You should still be able to find what you need for the Swede, but you might work at it. Finding them for the Ford will be simple.
Over all, the Volvo is a much nicer place to put those parts, so I voted for it.
I voted for the F-150. I’ve always loathed the looks of the jellybean F-150, and I still do. I was actually given one with 200k miles and a lot of rust a couple years ago, and after beating the crap out of it for several months I gained a healthy respect for that truck. I had been given that truck with instructions to send it to Valhalla if I wished, but I found myself unwilling to kill it. It had more life to give as a work truck for somebody, so I fixed a couple things and sold it for $900.
Of course the idiot buyer gave it to his teenage son, who promptly blew it up three days later doing burnouts with his buddies. Damn kids!
MT Volvo wagon? Sure it’s only an 850, not a 2xx, 7xx, or 9xx, and it’s ubiquitous 850 silver, but it looks great
While I love the Volvo, I would take the F150. That’s probably a reflection of my current needs, but I would do the front end work and brakes (or maybe just brakes) in my driveway and use it until death. It would probably end up a beach fishing truck and home store hauler. Never again going over 45 mph.
“It would probably end up a beach fishing truck”
If you’re in SoCal hoping for Grunions don’t bother. Damn things NEVER show up : (
I read the headline and come in full well thinking that I would vote for the Volvo.
After reading the post that’s exactly what I did.
Buy the F-150 and make it a farm truck. The sloppy steering and weak brakes won’t matter if you’re using it to haul feed and fertilizer off public roads.
Now that I think about it, could you do the same thing with the 850? I don’t know if there are restrictions on what kinds of vehicles can be registered for farm use.
The F-150 is a candidate for a around the house work truck. The rust is a turn off. By the time I am done fixing it, I could have bought one with those issues addressed. I am not handy enough to address these problems, so it would be in shops to fix.
The Volvo wins in this case as with the millage, I would not mind putting down a tarp and hauling stuff.
I’d buy a NEW Volvo wagon over any truck. I have zero use for a truck, regardless of the price I can acquire it for.
Volvo all day. Trucks get used, especially 4WD in the rust belt. No thanks.
While I have an odd affinity for Fords of that generation, especially short bed extended cabs, I have to assume that the rocker rust is simply the tip of the iceberg. In good clean condition I’d happly drive either of these but today I’m going Volvo.
Volvo for sure. I’ve seen cars with only 100k on them that look way worse than that Volvo. Someone clearly took care of it. And not just mechanically but cosmetically as well.
Those Volvo photos look like they could have been taken in 1999. If a car looks that good after 400k, it’s a pretty safe bet.
I trust the drivetrain on the Volvo more. I’m guessing (but could be tragically wrong) that the rough running is likely something with the PCV system and could be an easy, relatively inexpensive fix, assuming it hasn’t gone on for too long. The Ford, well, brakes aren’t too bad, but if we’re talking about rebuilding the front end suspension/steering, that gets expensive quick, even for a DIYer. Coupled with a should-be-fine manual transmission, the Volvo is a surer bet and it’s cheaper to boot.
Also, I had no idea this vintage of 850 ever had regular-ass velour upholstery. I thought they only ever came with pleather, but I have to believe it, because I’m seeing it.
The non-turbo models were available as such. I am 99% certain that if it has a turbo, it also has leather. I don’t think you could get a manual turbo in the US either (except a T5 or T5R).
Only in Canada could you get the T5 with the 5 speed.
Once they went to S/V70 you could, they were rare, but available.
the 2 valve tritons of that generation were technically better than the three valves, but I am still amazed this one still runs. I would rather replace the volvo 5 even though it will cost twice as much simply because it is a better vehicle in the end.
I have fond memories of my family’s ’99 Econoline that had the 5.4. Sadly the engine started giving them issues (I don’t know the specifics although I think my brothers said something about “coil-on packs”? I don’t know, something too expensive/difficult to fix) at 240,000 miles. Between that and the fact we live in the rust belt, they scrapped it *just* as I was getting my license.
The ’97 conversion Econoline I later got had the 4.6l. It and the transmission were the only parts of that van that never gave me trouble, but damn it felt so underpowered going uphill.
But in retrospect I’m more disdainful of the idea of a 4-speed auto. It loved hunting gears.
OMG, MF that boatanchor 5.4 triton. I have one in a Navigator and it’s such a piece of crap. I think the generation here would shoot out spark plugs on a good day (later, you could never get ’em out without breaking.) Then the cam phasers drop. I got the joy of doing a full timing set on mine because of the phasers, weak oil pump and resultant issues with hydraulic timing chain tensioners that have bad seals and the chain gets sloppy. All that headache for a lump of a motor that performs poorly. You have to take half of the damn engine bay out to get to the timing chain cover. No no and NO on that Ford. I had to do all of that work at around 110k miles.
On the other hand, that whiteblock Volvo is in it to win it. I actually have a v70 and it’s older and has more miles than the navigator. Runs wonderfully, no issues. Timing belt change was easy, PCV system less so, but they’re pretty solid candidates.
Shove that rusty turd of a truck off a cliff, that’s all they’re good for.
These early 5.4s don’t have variable valve timing, and are much more durable than the one you had. I can’t wrap my head around paying $1400 for this truck though. I was GIVEN one of these trucks with 200k miles and this much rust a couple years ago. Granted, it was 2wd, but still.
And yet this one made it past 300k so either somebody already did all that work or those things weren’t a problem on this engine.
Yeah, that 5.4 Triton is such a piece of crap that millions upon millions of them – including this one – have only lasted multiple hundreds of thousands of miles without any issues! What a piece of junk!
If you had a phaser problem than a) you were in an significant minority and b) you didn’t take care of your truck because that only happens when you get sludge.
This generation is the 2 valve Triton whose only significant issue was spark plug launching. This preventable by torqueing the plugs to 20 ft/lb and using Motorcraft plugs. If
one does launch a solid insert kit allows repair without removing a cylinder head. It’s also recommended to use Motorcraft coils, and have all 8 be the same brand. Other than that, stay on top of oil and filter changes and drive it.
The 3 valve has the issues with broken plugs and cam phasers and the twin cam Triton is also troublesome but the Coyote has a good reputation.
I’d rather walk through Death Valley with 6 Coral snakes biting my ass cheeks than any of these vehicles. On the other hand, IF 6 deadly snakes were happening to bite my bittersweet Italian ass, I would die in a Volvo on the way to the hospital.
Volvo stick wagon. Yes! 400,000 miles, so it’s broken in nicely
I’ll take the high miles over rust.
Same. Even if both somehow gave up tomorrow, there’s probably more value left in the Volvo’s parts.
Voted Volvo, based on the lack of rust and little needed repairs. Plus the fact that I live in Michigan which has no emissions certs/laws so in theory this thing could hit the road no issue. Bonus: manual!
That F150 front end work scares me and im wondering how many transmissions that truck has had in its 300k mile life.
Did those have the same (or very similar) transmission to equivalent model year Econolines?
My family loved their Econolines (myself included) and we had a ’99 with the 5.4l from new to 240,000, and I had a ’97 with the 4.6l from 100,000 to 160,000. They had many problems, but not the transmissions.