I think that the OP must be operating in the sphere of those who mistakenly believe that Volvos are…
…safer than other cars
…will run “forever”.
Some will tell you that this reputation was justly earned years ago, but that the newer Volvos are just not as good as “the old ones” were.
I am here to tell you that the old ones were unreliable, labor-intensive, finicky machines prone to all sorts of weird and hard-to-diagnose electrical problems, and the newer ones are essentially just more of the same–albeit with much more expensive replacement parts. Or, in other words–I don’t know where this exalted opinion of Volvos originates, as I don’t think that it was ever warranted.
I had the misfortune to buy a '74 Volvo–brand new–and despite maintaining it BETTER than the mfr specified, it was the absolute worst, least-reliable piece of unmitigated crap that I ever had the misfortune to own. Just to give you a point of comparison, my next car after the Volvo was an '81 Chevy Citation (one of the legendarily “terrible” X-cars from GM). In truth, the Chevy spent less time in the shop, was far more reliable, and wound up costing far less for repairs than that accursed Volvo. The Chevy stranded me on one occasion. The Volvo stranded me…probably at least 6 times.
And, as to the safety factor…if you go back 15-30 years ago…Volvos were safer than most other makes of cars. However, in more recent times, other manufacturers have played “catch-up” so effectively that Volvos no longer have any safety advantage.
So, if the OP thinks that buying a used Volvo with known electrical issues is a better idea than buying a new Japanese car with a full warranty, all I can say is…I own a beautiful bridge that connects Brooklyn and Manhattan, and I would be happy to sell it to you.
Are you interested in buying my Brooklyn Bridge?