Honda has a history; Volvo has a history. History has a way of repeating itself. I have seen Honda and Toyota owners delve back into the world of unreliable vehicles after years of being lulled into thinking, they all must be decent. The several I know quickly switched back. I got upset whenever I needed a brake job on one of our early Accords thinking it was too much repair work to expect in 80k miles. You get a little complacent owning a decently reliable car.
Did that Accord have the trapped rotor setup?
Whoever thought that up clearly never turned a wrench in their life . . .
Unfortunately/amazingly, Honda was not the only manufacturer to use that system
I would fix the Honda you have, way WAY before buying any Volvo. An old 240 Volvo will require a lot more repairs than the Honda you have now.
I’m guessing our favorite provocative troll is back. What happy Honda owner who got 320k miles out of one would be considering an ancient Volvo? No good reason. The answer to a dying Honda is to buy one with some life left in it. Maybe three-five years old, very basic, manual transmission if possible. It doesn’t have to be a Honda, of course, but it can be.
Are you suggesting that the guy whose first initial is R actually started this thread?
Consider brands comparable to the Volvo. Your favorite brands offer Acura, Lexus and Ininiti. I’d include the Cadillac CTS, but its your car.
“Just imagine if the Volvo was 24 years old.”
It would likely have a tree growing up through the middle of it.
I think it’s more likely that 24 year old Volvo is actually the soda can in your fridge