|
I have to weigh in with a contrary position just to give an different opinion.
I have owned perhaps 100 cars so far (and counting) that span the range from Chevy Novas with straight six pushrod engines through MANY British sports cars to rather exotic Italian sports cars, and I have to say my '96 965 is on the Nova side of the bunch both in function and complexity. Aside from engine head work (being a 4valve/cyl DOHC design), it is no more comlex than most "modern" autos. In fact I selected this car ahead of ANY FWD, transverse V-6 engined car because it is MUCH easier to access components for service.
Interference? Sure. Most modern designs are interference designs. I did about 6 valve jobs on my 70's era belt driven SOHC Fiats (128s and X-1/9) when belts stripped cogs or slipped and actually got so I could do a complete job in 8 hours flat or a timing belt change in 45 minutes flat (when I finally realized that 12,000mi was a safe interval on the 128 Series engines). Those never damaged pistons (only valves) as long as the belts failed at engine start-up (as they always seemed to).
Is the Volvo 900 a bad car? Not in my opinion. I like it better in many ways than the 5, 6, and 7 Series BMWs I used as my "drivers" over the last 10 years, and they were wonderful cars (6 cyl SOHC interference engines, but with chain drive) to drive and easy and dirt cheap to maintain. In fact, I'd get one of those long before I'd drive an Acura or Lexus, though again I'd favor the straight 6 engine.
If you want expensive, try breaking a chain in a Mercedes V-8 with an aluminum block. The Volvo isn't cheap when the belt goes, but I don't hear of many going if changed at the service design limit (70K with newer cars or older ones with modification kits), with idler pulleys and water pumps changed every other belt. I also understand it's also a good idea to change the oil pump pulley bolt since it's in the timing belt circuit.
Personally, while the Accura (and most Japanese cars) are more reliable and service-free than Volvos, the Volvo 960 is a very satisfying car to own. Plus, you can find mint 960s or 965s (Like my '96 wagon-great utility) for almost peanuts compared to Accuras. I got mine with 102K this past summer for under $7K and comparable ES-300 Lexux and Legends were going for $11-13K. For that price difference, I am willing to assume a little risk.
Weather wise, a mild climate is easier on any car. The greater the temperature swing, the more everything is stressed, including even the interior (seats/dash) and paint. When I lived in Arizona, my paint, dashes and seats cracked; in Alaska, rubber any vinyl parts broke all of the time. Parking overnight with a FWD car once with the wheels turned would instantly destroy a set of front axle boots (since at 40 below made them unable to flex), so they'd crack (then dirt and sand would destroy the CV joints in short order). Even metal parts of different composition expand/contract at different rates, so the greater the differential, the greater the wear. In Alaska, I drove 4wd Subarus and full sized 4wd trucks (Blazers/Surburbans/Broncos/F-Series). The Subarus were bullet proof (park those wheels straight in the winter, though), but the American brutes were easier to fit into with bulky parkas and boots on, better survived collisions with big moose and other large vehicles, plus they were easier to repair with gloves/mittens on. Not much fun to drive, but you can change a water pump at 20 below outside in jig time on a 6 cyl OHV straight six.
If you have found a very clean 900 Series car and like it, I'd say keep it, though if you don't know when the timing belt ws last changed, it's cheap insurance to do it now. Other than that and the plastic/aluminum radiator (common to MANY cars nowadays) I just don't see that big a liability with the Volvo over other comparable cars, especially when you consider purchase price.
Bob
|
