These two highly durable veterans from another era hang out a lot at this corner, sharing stories from the 1980s. I know the MR2 is a 1985, from its license plate, but I’m having a bit of trouble pinning down the exact year of the Volvo 244. 1979? 1980? It was a transitional year, between the single large round headlights and the quad rectangular ones.
In any case, these two have a lot of stories to share, if only they could talk.
Given that it’s been 35 years since the Toyota MR2 first graced our land, it’s not surprising that their number have dwindled rather precipitously in recent years. Toyotas seem to have about a 30 year life span, at least here in Eugene. But once they get to the other side of that, things become a bit more precarious. It’s not like they start falling apart at the seams, but little things start to crop up more and more, and owners eventually lose interest in dealing with them. For most, thta means upgrading from a 1990 Corolla to a 2005 model.
But when you have a gen1 MR2, there’s no easy replacement. What would it be? A Pontiac Fiero? I kid…
The interior of this one is in comparable shape to the exterior: showing some signs of wear, but still pretty solid. The near-indestructible drive train is probably still good to go too. If the owner can deal with the occasional hiccup, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it in 2035.
The Volvo 240 Series has been wearing the long-life vehicle crown for decades now. It never fails to amaze me just how good their bodies still look as long as they haven’t actually been beaten with a flail or cudgel regularly by their owners. Even the paint, good old school European enamel, holds up remarkably well over the decades.
This is a 244 DL, meaning the by-far most popular model, with the 2.1 L red block OHC four, whose toughness need not be extolled any further here today.
This is a stick shift version, which is a good thing. Is it still the venerable four speed, with optional overdrive? When was that replaced by the five speed? I can’t be bothered to do all the looking up for that right now. The interior is also in about the same shape as the exterior as well as the MR2: used but quite decent. Looks like it too has another 10-15 years left in it.
There’s still as slew of the 240 Volvos in town. lately I’ve seen some in the hands of quite young owners; they seem to be as hip as ever. Their grandmothers might well have bee driving them. And they do send a very strong anti-CUV message, just like in its day this Volvo sent a very strong anti-brougham message. It’s not done messaging…
Paul,
The Volvo 244 is definitely a 1979, because for the next model year (1980), they went to larger-font badges in the rear, and eliminated the fender badges calling out the engine size. In their place were smaller badges that said simply “VOLVO.” Yes, that particular car does have the venerable M46 4-speed gearbox with electronic overdrive.
And another reason why I know this car is a ’79. For 1980, Volvo changed the model designations and the cars became known as DL, GL, GLE, and Coupe, rather than 244, 262C, 265, etc. as in previous years.
They are with us now because they are outstanding vehicles.
The MR2 is a great deal of fun, if you can still drop to your knees to get inside.
The Volvo is a forever car.
Have you any idea how many disposable cars have come and gone, used up and junked during the 35 years or so these two have been around?
As a conservative, these cars are proof that conserving is at the root of conservation. Take care of your quality rides and you help Earth.
Also – consider where your car is built, not just where it is assembled. Buying American helps our neighbors and our country economically. Think local, buy local.
Buy a quality used car instead of a cheap new ride.
Consider what it takes to keep your car on the road.
Exotic mechanicals shorten the life of a car.
I’m with you!
But we are 0.5%.
And, let’s be honest, until the 1990s, the domestic cars didn’t have the same quality as the BETTER imports.
America is big. More pound for your money. That’s what we do. Big cars. Big yards. We don’t do small and high-quality, we are about BIG and decent quality.
“consider where your car is built, not just where it is assembled. Buying American helps our neighbors and our country economically. Think local, buy local.”
I need some help with this one, sorry, What’s “Buying American” mean in this context? Personally I think it means buying the vehicle that benefits the greatest number of people across the widest spectrum.
Camry designed, built, assembled in the US largely with suppliers from the local area.
vs:
Ford Fusion partially if not largely designed in Europe as the Mondeo, built and assembled in Mexico for our market.
In my mind the Camry is the more “American” car. By far.
BMW X3 built in South Carolina vs Buick Envision built in China.
Toyota Tundra designed and engineered in the US and built in Texas, Chevy Silverado CrewCab built in Mexico.
Subaru Outback built in Indiana
Buick Regal Tour-X built in Germany
Honda Passport/Pilot built in Ohio
Chevrolet Blazer built in Mexico
Hyundai Sonata built in Alabama
Dodge Charger built in Canada, owned by a foreign registered corporation.
Jeep Renegade built in Italy, US label, foreign owners
Fiat 500X built in the same plant in Italy on the same platform, same owners
Is one of those supposedly an “American” car?
I’m hardly cherry-picking, those are just off the top of my head without looking into it further. Sales of any of them support a large population of dealers, mechanics, etc. in this country. Sales of some of them support a large number of people working to put the various parts together in this country. Sales of some of them and often the ones NOT with a domestic “label” support large staffs of engineers, designers, purchasing agents, and various other back-office functions in this country. Many (Most?) auto manufacturer that sell in the US seem to find that actually building some or a large portion of their product in the US makes sense financially.
Perhaps one should wonder why the “American” car companies seem to find it advantageous to NOT build vehicles on their home soil whereas most imported brands DO build over here to some extent. I will note that the two auto manufacturers with the largest export volume of automobiles from the US are BMW and Mercedes Benz which frankly, boggles the mind.
What exactly is one supporting by “Buying American”?
I own five vehicles:
One is a foreign brand, foreign assembled with minimal if any US content
Two are foreign brands, assembled in the USA with much domestic content
Two are domestic brands, assembled in the USA with much but not exclusively domestic content
“Perhaps one should wonder why the “American” car companies seem to find it advantageous to NOT build vehicles on their home soil whereas most imported brands DO build over here to some extent. ”
My guess would be that all of the American “legacy manufacturers” (for want of a better term) are under union contracts that results in money saved by building the cars offshore, while the “transplants” are mostly non-union plants that are at a cost advantage when compared with the Big 3 legacy operations. I am not saying this is good or bad, but I suspect that BMW or Mercedes can build a vehicle in the US with lower labor costs than GM/Ford/Chrysler can. At minimum, I think that the incentives in place nudge legacy companies towards building their most profitable vehicles here while less profitable ones get off-shored. Transplants do not need to enter into this calculation.
My Fiat 500e’s body and interior were designed in Italy, its German-built electric drivetrain was engineered in Detroit, and it was finally assembled in Mexico.
Yes, and per Wikipedia: “Fiat Chrysler Automobiles’ main headquarters are located in the Netherlands, and the financial headquarters are in London for tax purposes. The holding company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and Borsa Italiana in Milan.[7] Exor N.V., an Italian investment group controlled by the Agnelli family, owns 29.19% of FCA and controls 44.31% through a loyalty voting mechanism”
Your car truly is an international citizen…But if Dodge commissioned a version and called it the Dodge Joule it’d be considered a full-fledged American car and would possibly be the next pace car for the Pocono 500 or something.
This is where I’m solidly “conservative”. I still happily tool around in my first car, and have maintained it where appropriate using salvaged parts. It goes well beyond cars too, most of what I own I seek out the best of what already exists and use forever if I can. I do it out of deeply engrained frugality and a general interest in tinkering with anything, but I’m happy to leave not too big of a footprint as well.
Also – consider where your car is built, not just where it is assembled. Buying American helps our neighbors and our country economically. Think local, buy local…
…Buy a quality used car instead of a cheap new ride.
The former doesn’t matter if you do the ladder. I didn’t help the residents of Dearborn and Lorain Ohio one bit buying a car they designed and built in 1994 in 2005. Wear and tear maintenence items(tires, fluids, brake pads, ball joints, bushings etc.) are all that are applicable in this respect with a used car, but it’s hard to say where many of that stuff comes from even from domestic parts brands.
Well…no. Unfortunately for old-car fans—I used to parrot it stridently—the math doesn’t support that line of argument. Despite what I fervently but baselessly used to believe because I wanted it to be true, newer cars and the processes to make them are so much less dirty and destructive, and recycling is so efficient, that getting a new(er) car and scrapping an old one really is better for the environment. That isn’t to advocate a forced push to get oldies off the road, but environmental respect is not a sound argument for keeping an older car.
Yes, but I do make an exception of honor for those of us like XR7Matt who drive Curbside Classics daily around where people can see and appreciate them. Like our houses and other buildings, CCs embody a historical story that’s an important part of our culture.
There are so few such CCs their impact on the climate and otherwise is nil.
You and I don’t have a quarrel on that point.
Keep in mind also my car is modified with a newer powertrain and newer functioning emissions equipment. Unless I bought something that was more fuel efficient(nope), I’m quite confident I’m doing significantly less earthly harm than I would if I bought 3 brand new V8 Mustangs(or Challenger or Camaro)since 2005, driven the same amount of miles.
Daniel is correct with strictly original cars, in particular oldies predating environmental mandates, but so-called restomodding an old car with a modern salvaged powertrain is pretty green when everything from fuel injection and emissions equipment is retained. I know we’re a mostly prservationist group when it comes to old cars, but if I’m going to daily drive something, I enjoy trouble free running(fuel injection), not smelling like exhaust after a window-down drive(catylitic converters), getting reasonable MPG(overdrive, EGR), not stinking up the attached garage (EVAP) and not having my pretty engine covered in oil film (PCV). All of this can effortlessly carry over to an old car and that’s not even to mention the possibilities with EV conversions now and into the future.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Retrofit!
I like your fourth “R” added to the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle trio.
The Volvo would be my pick of the two. The color is not my favorite, but the 4 speed/OD would more than make up for it.
As for the MR-2, I already have a car that calls for some contortions to get in and out, plus the top goes down on mine. The MR-2 is a sideways move, at best.
Oh boy, I couldn’t pick to be honest, love ’em both. I test drove a ratty rusty 1k MR2 in college and on some wet Upstate NY back roads, that thing was on the knife-edge of fun/scary, even with “just” a tired old 4AGE making 120-ish hp (new). Ithaca was chock full of old Volvos, sadly these earlier 240s didn’t quite have the galvanization of the later (’86+?) cars and rotted away, albeit at a slower rate than Japanese contemporaries. For our Indy roads, the Volvo is a logical pick I suppose. If I still lived in Ithaca? Toss up: the Volvo would feel so right bouncing down a gravel road to get to a nice hiking/mountain biking trail, or pulling a small sailboat down to the lake. The MR2 would shine on the back roads…
My mother’s final Volvo wagon was a 1986, and it still had the 4 speed with overdrive. Not sure of the final year for that setup though. These Volvo’s have been ubiquitous for so long, they are really timeless. The 1st gen MR2 was of course replaced by a more “modern” design, and I always thought the 1st gen looked awkwardly angular, and the 2nd gen just pudgy (for what it’s worth, I liked the Fiero). But time has been good to the 1st gen Mister2, in my eyes. It’s clean and efficient looking. And of course comes from the era of prime Toyota.
The picture highlights the weakest part of the MR2: the factory 2-spoke steering wheel.
Not a bad wheel (better than the aftermarket one in picture, hands-down), but it was appropriate for a Camry, not a sporting car.
The styling perhaps was not the greatest–but I think it’s part of MR2’s appeal. This may be the most fun, mid-priced car that I have never driven.
It is the world’s most trouble-free mid-engine car ever. It’s 7500 rpm redline almost matched a Ferrari 308GTB.
There is no substitute for this car. Fieros, Fiat X1/9s, and even Porsche 914s, pale in comparison.
In my fantasy garage, I have room for an MR2.
On the other hand, regarding the Volvo…I remember seeing a Fairmont 2-door on e-bay a few years ago, California car, less than 50k, 4-cyl, 4-speed. I really thought about it. I’d rather have that, though I readily admit it is not as well-constructed. What it lacks in quality, it makes up for in character. Just don’t hurry it, and keep the engine between 2,000 and 4,000 rpm (it pulls above that, but it sounds thrashy and about to self-destruct).
Still, I have room for a 78-80 Fairmont, 4-cyl, 4-speed, and the ‘handling suspension’ ($40) and mandatory larger 185/75-14 tires.
Have you driven an X1/9?
From the looks of the leaves in front of and behind Mr. two it doesn’t look like he gets out and stretches his legs too often any more. Both cars are in great shape, particularly given their age. Hopefully they’ve got many years and miles ahead of them.
I am fairly sure 1987 was the first year for the M47 (5-speed) rather than the M46 (4-speed plus Laycock de Normanville electric overdrive) in the 240 cars.
US-spec Volvos of this time give me the giggles, because instead of huge, square thick-rimmed ’70’s bottletop glasses – befitting a public servant Swede – there’s four startled bug eyes which makes each one look as if a Mini just ran up its clacker. A WOKE Swede indeed.
I’m not inspired by the thought that a creation as grim as the 240 is a paradigm of longevity. It’s too much of a reminder that the dull really do inherit the earth, while those whose beings make the journey worth doing fall away from terminal boredom or exuberance.
I’m pleased to see the Nagoya-quality ugly old shoe that is the MR2 being just as long lived. Impractical, a bit dangerous (by reputation, at the limit), rorty, zippy, revvy and generally anything that the rotten Turnip, sorry, Swede, is not, and alleluiah for that.
Interesting. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen someone describe the 240 as “grim”. I’m curious whether you’ve driven one. Me, if I were picking an adjective having nothing to do with longevity it’d probably be something like “plucky”.
To most folk they look pretty Soviet, and, being nothing if not unoriginal, I’m with most folk.
Yeah, I’ve driven one, and, like the Soviet Union, I s’pose it had its charms. Seats (and seating height), the famed solidity, surprisingly little wind noise, quite reasonable go. Also a violently unpleasant engine – long-lasting only because owners get frightened if accelerating hard, surely – stupid thirst, feel-free steering, Titanic body roll and a crude ride. A very dull experience. Conning buyers that this was a luxury-priced conveyance was quite the achievement, either that or the ultimate Emporer’s New Clothes job. The fact advertised as a virtue that one could park eight of one’s friend’s Volvos on one’s roof (resembling a bizarre and vaguely orgiastic mating ritual) points to buyers with most utilitarian concerns about cars, where strength conquers all other matters.
I can imagine a grim Soviet Realist poster saying so.
(If grim wasn’t available, instead of “plucky” I’d go more with “ineradicable”).
Me, I try to avoid claiming to speak for others, let alone for “most folk”.
Your description of the driving experience doesn’t match mine—again, speaking only for myself—though perhaps my experience is coloured by the specification of the 240 I drove most; it was an ’85 245 Turbo-intercooled. Even the lesser models, though, I can’t get onside with calling “Soviet”.
Me, I’m omniscient. And infallible.
I can’t speak about the Volvo, but I did own a 1989 Toyota MR2 (last year of Gen 1 cars) and it easily matched my Miatas for FTD (FunToDrive) quotient! Also, it nicely accommodated my then 6’4″ frame, unlike my Miatas. They were/are CRAMPED, even now down to 6’1″.
The design of the MR2 exterior was ok, to me, but the IP….well, it always reminded me of something a Elkhart, IN RV pattern maker would-literally-HACK out….:( Ergos were fine, but not, for me, eye appealing.
Overall I must say that my MR2 was a very good car to own and drive. DFO
Having owned 4 Volvo 240s, their reputation for longevity and toughness is well deserved, except for the electricals. Drivetrain? Bulletproof. Wish I could still buy a new one.
My mom had a 1989 Volvo station wagon. I can’t recall the model, but I want to say it was a 240. It felt like a tank, and looked like a tank. Mom used to smirk when driving it. It was called the RMS Titanic. I think we only had it for 18 months before some niggling issue did it in. I want to say it was a transmission issue. If I recall correctly, and I might very well not, it was a V6with some of the upmarket kit included.
At the time it was 18 years old or more and sourcing parts wasn’t happening.