Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ilow
I think with your suggestion of the Acuras you may have unwittingly been speaking to what i was talking about, which is mainly that there is a difference in the fit and finish of a Volvo compared with a Honda. They are both very reliable, but a 10 year old Volvo (or Acura) often feels virtually new while the Hondas seem more dated. Naturally there are exceptions and this is MHO.
|
Well I dunno, I have 3 hondas that are 12, 14, and 16 years old respectively. They all look great, but then I do take very good care of them because I'm a nut about things like that. Once you get into the 10+ year old territory, you have to consider the actions of the owner as well as the car itself. A guy who bought a (much cheaper) Civic or Accord very likely stopped taking immaculate care of it long before the guy who bought the (way more expensive, higher "status" (whatever that means)) Volvo.
When I said the Acuras were much nicer, that's because their engines generally have a better power - weight ratio, and they put more luxury crap (leather, GPS, automatic climate control, etc) in them. New Hondas have caught up there - hell the Civic can be gotten with a built-in GPS and leather now - but we're talking about older cars where there was MUCH more differentiation in the luxo-features between Honda and Acura.
Don't get me wrong, I think Volvos are very nice cars too, and no matter which one the OP goes with, if he takes care of it it'll last him forever. It's not terribly hard to find either a Volvo *or* a Honda with half a million miles on it, still running fine. But taking care of a Volvo is going to be more expensive than taking care of an Accord or even an Acura Legend (which, btw, was a DAMN nice car that was well ahead of its time in the sport-luxury sedan category)