Hacker News Reader

Comment by semi-extrinsic | Hacker News Reader

With the OP's requirements I'd recommend a '94 Volvo 240 Turbo. (If we ever need a second car I'm getting one; my first car was one). New enough to be safe (airbags etc), some tinkering will get you 300 bhp, it's rear-wheel drive and has a perfect 50-50 weight distribution if you move the battery to the trunk (standard rally trick).

Stereo still has a cassette player, so a $5 adapter lets you plug in your phone for music. There's not a touch control in sight, the ergonomics are well thought through, and it even has a crude form of dual zone AC. Sure, it's more expensive in gas money, but when you factor in the reduced depreciation that's peanuts.

View on HN

What a terrible car, especially the "1994 model" which is laughably just the 1974 car as if it were from some Soviet manufacturing line that just wouldn't go away. If you think bolting an airbag into a 1974 car body makes it safe, I'm sure the NCAP people want to talk to you.

I own a 960, Volvo won't sell parts for it anymore. Two generations and 20-years after your suggested car was designed I find mine has no thought given to ergonomics. Row of switches on the flat dash, behind the steering wheel where you can't see them... yeah.

That the 240 was the same car for 20 years is an absurd claim. It's well known that the NHTSA bought and tore apart multiple 240s when they were updating the US auto safety standards in the 80s. It's also well known that Volvo has one of the most thorough and well-funded safety R&D departments in the world. The 1993 240 received five stars in crash testing from the NHSTA [1].

As for your 960: I can't comment on the ergonomics, never having been in one, but I know for sure that you can still get parts for it in Europe.

[1] http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratin...

I regularly get 40+ MPG(US) on road trips in this little car. The info system being stupid is way overshadowed by how nice it is to drive, given the price. It's still a loud econobox with paper-thin sheet metal, but it drives a lot better than I expected.

Those cassette adapters for a 1/8" audio jack have awful sound quality, break frequently, and are usually around $20, not $5. You would be better off upgrading the stereo, unless you just want to play tapes or listen to the radio.

> Sure, it's more expensive in gas money, but when you factor in the reduced depreciation that's peanuts.

What a disappointing attitude to have toward fuel consumption in 2015. :/

What would you have him do with a functional but old car otherwise? Crushing a car that is functional and building a new modern car to replace it takes a little north of 125 Gigajoules of energy.

An older functional car may be better for the planet than destroying and replacing it.

Blame subsidized gas; not everyone can afford to act as if it were priced correctly.

FYI, gas costs $7 per gallon where I live.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com