You all like European sports sedans, right? BMWs and such? Good. I don’t have any BMWs today, but I’ve got a cool old Peugeot and a really nice RWD Volvo for you to check out. Neither one is perfect, but the prices are right.
Well, the results from yesterday don’t leave any room for interpretation, do they? By a massive margin, you all preferred the AWD Chevy Astro to its Ford Aerostar competition. The Chevy’s all-wheel-drive system wasn’t the only thing it had going for it, but for a lot of you it seemed to push it over the top.
Having driven a few examples of each of these over the years, and having serviced more of them than I can count, I have to agree. The Aerostar is decent, but the Astro is excellent. There’s a reason used Astros command the prices they do, even with astronomical (pun intended) mileage on their odometers. That van will serve somebody very well for a long time to come, if they take care of it.
European cars have gotten a bad rap in recent years, mainly due to the complexity of servicing and repairing them. German cars in particular have gotten more complicated even as their makers have implemented cost-cutting measures, making service and repairs a mess, especially for DIY mechanics. But it wasn’t always that way. The two cars we’re going to look at today are from an earlier era, when European cars were simpler and more robust. No Germans here; one’s French and the other is Swedish. Let’s take a look so you can decide which one you prefer.
1986 Peugeot 505 S – $2,800
Engine/drivetrain: 2.2-liter OHC inline 4, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Woodbine, GA
Odometer reading: 148,000 miles (but not accurate)
Operational status: Runs and drives well, needs minor work
The Peugeot 505, introduced in 1979, had some big shoes to fill. Its predecessor, the 504, was well-known and well-loved all over the world for its durability and composure in harsh conditions. Peugeot’s engineers knew this, and chose to make the 505 an evolution of the same basic idea rather than a revolutionary new car. If it ain’t broke, as the saying goes, don’t fix it.
Many of the 505s that found their way to America were diesels, competing with the Mercedes W123 diesel models, but this one has a gasoline engine. It also, in true American fashion, has an automatic transmission, a ZF-built four-speed unit. Hey, at least it’s probably quicker than the diesel. The seller of this car has only owned it about a year, but says it runs well. It has had some recent front end work, and it drives fine, but at least one wheel is bent, causing a vibration at certain speeds. New wheels and tires are in order.
It looks good inside, with only a little wear and a couple cracks in the dash. The seller says the speedometer cable is broken, so the miles shown are not correct, and you’ll probably want to use a GPS speedo on your phone to know how fast you’re going. The air conditioning, however, works just fine.
It’s in good condition outside, though it’s kind of a bland color. I don’t think the black wheels are doing it any favors. They’re supposedly something rare, but they’re ugly and bent, so who cares? Ditch them and get something that looks better and rolls properly.
1994 Volvo 940 Turbo – $3,500
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.3-liter OHC inline 4, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Portland, OR
Odometer reading: 236,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Volvo’s long-running 240 was meant to be retired and replaced by the 740, but the 240 refused to die. Instead, the 240 and 740 were sold alongside each other until the early 1990s, when the 240 was replaced by the front-wheel-drive 850 and the 740 morphed into this car, the 940. It ended up being the last of the old-school rear-wheel-drive Volvo sedans. This car represents the end of an era for Volvo.
Turbocharging and Swedish cars go way back; both Volvo and Saab made good use of turbos to add power to their engines. This 740 is powered by a turbocharged 2.3-liter version of Volvo’s famous “Red block” engine, driving a solid rear axle through a four-speed automatic transmission. It’s all good durable stuff, as evidenced by this car’s advanced mileage. It runs and drives well, and has just had a bunch of service work done. From what I’ve seen of old RWD Volvos, this car should have a lot of life left in it.
It looks good inside, but there are a few things that need fixing. The fuel gauge is wonky, and the sunroof switch is “a bit testy,” the seller says. Also, there’s a Simon & Garfunkel cassette stuck in the tape deck, and it doesn’t work. [Ed note: so you’ll be hearing the sound of silence instead of The Sound of Silence – Pete.] But the air conditioning works, and those seats sure do look inviting.
The 940 fixed the 740’s biggest visual problem: that bolt-upright rear window. This car, with the more sloped rear window, looks a lot better. The paint is a little faded, but overall it looks good, and those five-spoke directional wheels are a nice touch. The tires on them are newish, too.
These cars both come from a long line of well-designed, well-made cars that are known for their durability. One of them isn’t nearly as well-known here in the US, but that doesn’t make its reputation any less true. Either one of them is something you could be proud to own and care for. It’s all a matter of which one speaks to you.
The post Which Euro Sedan Is More Your Speed? 1986 Peugeot 505 vs 1994 Volvo 940 appeared first on The Autopian.
