Honda/Volvo
 

My wife and I need a second car... Going to buy something used, since we're not rolling in dough. I'm pretty picky about my cars, but I've never bought one in the States before, so I'm not really familiar with how easy/cheap parts are here for different makes/models.

Basically, I'd prefer a sedan, a late 90's / early 00's Volvo (any model really) or a Honda Accord. I like Volvos best of all, and have driven several back in Europe. But my question is... which would likely have cheaper parts and maintenance costs here in America? Honda or Volvo?

Volvos are notorious for having expensive repair bills. My friend has an S80 T6 and it gave him all sorts of trouble that ran up the bill pretty quickly. Honda should be cheaper, but still about twice as much as a domestic.

My vote would go to the Honda Accord. Less expensive to maintain and may well outlast the Volvo. Parts and service will be less with the Honda for sure.

Personally, I like both as cars. I would recommend the accord though. Likely to be a bit more reliable then the Volvo and repair costs would be cheaper. And the only reason I say it would be cheaper is availability of parts. I don't think either one would be a bad choice but the Honda would be slightly better.

I think that the Honda may be slightly less expensive to repair (depending on the Volvo model), but the Volvo will be worth repairing longer. Hondas seem to stop being fun or nice cars long before they stop running (JMHO).

If the cost to maintain a Honda is only slightly less than the average Volvo, I might go with a Volvo. Parts may not be as cheap, but being that I just moved into one of the biggest cities in the state, don't know my way around, and will be driving on the interstate a lot, Volvo might be a safer choice. I used to work for my uncle, he owns a repair shop back in Europe, buying totalled cars and putting them back together and selling them. And the Volvos were always in much better condition than the rice cups.

I haven't even considered domestic cars, in all honesty. I know next to nothing about them, and the little I've heard hasn't been good.

Both can be very expensive for dealer service. Service is their real profit and upscale almost always means higher margins. That'd slightly favor the Honda. For out-of-warranty there are always good local guys with better prices, and usually much better work. Check enthusiast forums for your area. Even if you do your own work it's good to know a local garage for parts NOW or for troubleshooting perspective. If I'm just buying parts and not in a rush I use online sources. The prices are mostly a wash for similar items.

As for servicing, I much prefer working on Volvos over Hondas. I find them simpler and more durable. At 100K most of the 1990+ in-town Hondas I've worked on have been burnt out in multiple areas while the Volvos are getting started. BUT, I haven't worked on the 8x0's and understand they can be real turkeys for both cost and reliability.

Just one perspective.

ALL reliable cars stop being fun and nice long before they stop running. That's why they're called reliable - - because they annoyingly don't give you the excuse to replace them.

I'll vote Honda. It's definitely cheaper to fix than the Volvo, and as to the reliability, I'll put a Honda up against any other car any day of the week. It may not beat all the other cars in reliability, but it certainly at least matches them.

Have you also considered looking at an Acura from the years you're considering? The CL, TL and RL (this one may still be too much for you) are roughly the size of an Accord, and they're MUCH nicer. You can get 'em for a song too since they've been replaced with newer versions.

Honda is a good choice, but I drive an '89 Acura Legend sedan that just keeps going and refuses to give up and is still reliable; so I agree that an Acura would be a very good choice that is upscale and more substantial than the Honda and still have Honda reliability. Not sure what resale value is of a used one, but we really like our '04 Acura TSX a lot and since new one in '04 cost $25k I figure a used one might cost as much now as an '01-ish Volvo.

If you like volvo then go volvo, I'm sure you will be pleased with it.
Normal maintenence should be about the same for either one, oil is oil no mater what car you are puting it in.

I love my '94 Volvo (940 wagon). It was our family car before it was given to me. My family has really only ever owned Volvos.

The key to doing right by your Volvo is to find a good mechanic to work on it, one who has reasonable prices and gives you good service. There are a number of good import mechanics out there, you just have to look. Ask your friends who have similar European cars where they take their BMW or Mercedes or Saab. Chances are their mechanic works on Volvos too.

I really love my Volvo, and can't imagine driving anything else.

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.

Volvo's are great, but STAY AWAY FROM A '99 S80 T6! Trust me on this one. I own one and that was the biggest mistake of my life, now i can't get rid of that piece of junk. Possibly a newer or older model would suffice. Either way both Volvo and Honda are nice cars. Honda would be tons cheaper on you 'more in-depth' parts.

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)