|
"I think what I meant to say was something like this...why modify a perfectly capable and reliable vehicle when, for the same kind of money, you could buy a used Mustang or Camaro?"
I don't think the issue is so much about modifying a "perfectly capable and reliable vehicle", in the generic sense, as it is about modifying a Volvo per se. Volvos have attributes that no Mustang or Camaro will ever have... For example, no one would ever have a discussion - at least not a serious one - debating a Mustang's safety record vs. a Volvo's. Don't get me wrong - I like M's and C's ok... in fact, I've got a '69 Camaro under restoration in my garage right now.
But like many others, I find my 240 (happens to be a 270,000 mile '82 242ti) very comfortable and pleasant to drive. I enjoy the sort of "cult status" of the 240. I happen to find them pretty good looking (in fact I think they are the only aesthetically pleasing of the "square" cars). And there's all kinds of ways to customize (ie, "personalize") a 240.
I have no intention of replacing the engine with a 302 or a 350, but I can certainly see potential benefits... $25 water pump... $69 alternator... parts at any Autozone or NAPA... etc, etc.
So it's kind of like the Chevy-into-a-Jag-XJ6 swap... the chassis of the car has some intrinsic qualities, and the American iron has some intrinsic qualities. To some, the whole IS greater than the sum of the individual parts.
I'll take one (sorta two) very cheap shot: If a Volvo-powered car is so much faster and better than a Ford-powered car, why didn't Mr. DeTomaso go to Sweden to find a power plant for the Pantera or the Mangusta? Or Mr. Shelby for the Cobra?
I don't remember who it was that said that a Volvo without a Volvo engine isn't a Volvo... now, my intention is not to get into a torpedoing contest, but my response to that is, So what? The car is here to serve the person, not the person to serve the car.
|
