2004 Volvo S80 T6 Turbo Sedan 4-door 2.9l Only 2 Owners My Dad & Me Clean Title on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1984 Volvo 242 DL

Volvo had tremendous success with the iconic 200 Series cars, selling them in North America from the 1975 model year all the way through 1993 (and if you count the Volvo 140, which was the same car from the A pillars rearward, the 240's history goes back to the middle 1960s). Nearly everybody who bought 240s on our continent did so in order to be safe and/or practical, which meant that the two-door version never sold anywhere near as well as its four-door and wagon brethren. Here's one of those rare 240 coupes (technically speaking, a two-door sedan), found in a San Jose car graveyard last winter. If you're going to be a stickler about the designation of this car as a two-door sedan and not as a coupe, you'll also want to call it by the name Volvo used when it was in the showroom: the 1984 Volvo DL. However, everybody in the Volvo world now prefers the original naming system that Volvo used for the 200s back home in Sweden, where you had 2 followed by a numeral indicating the number of engine cylinders and a numeral indicating the number of doors, with the trim-level code after that. So, what we have for today's Junkyard Gem is a Volvo 242 DL, i.e., the cheapest new 240 Americans could buy in 1984. You could get a turbocharged engine from the factory in the 1984 242, but this car has the ordinary naturally-aspirated 2.3-liter straight-four, rated at 111 horsepower. It also has the four-speed manual transmission with overdrive controlled by the button in the middle of the shift knob. Nearly 230,000 miles on the clock, which is decent for any 1980s car but not spectacular by Volvo 240 standards. Many Volvo enthusiasts prefer the smooth lines of the coupe to the stodgier sedans and wagons, and this one shows signs of ownership by someone who wasn't just about listening to NPR while driving safely to the natural-foods store. Sure enough, it has aftermarket springs and a non-factory rear sway bar. I wish I'd found these parts back in 2007, when I was helping to build a V8-swapped Volvo 244 road racer. The presence of the keys in a junkyard car, however, usually indicates that it was voluntarily let go by its final owner. Perhaps it was a dealership trade-in that proved to be impossible to sell due to a combination of three pedals, high miles, and lack of truck-shaped body. The interior looks like it might have been tolerable before it reached this place.

IIHS updates overlap test: 2 SUVs get good marks, 9 fare poorly

Vehicles in crashes keep occupants safe by deforming around the cabin in a way that maintains cabin integrity. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's moderate overlap test, introduced in 1995, has been a huge contributor to improved safety for front-row passengers in a crash. IIHS President David Harkey said, "Thanks to automakers’ improvements, drivers in most vehicles are nearly 50% less likely to be killed in a frontal crash today than they were 25 years ago." In the 'unintentional side effects' column, crash safety has gotten worse for passengers in the back seats. When carmakers reengineered the front crash structure to protect the driver, more crash forces got distributed throughout the rear. IIHS research claims rear passengers have a 46% greater risk of fatal injury than front-row passengers, but back-seaters haven't benefited from the same upgrades in safety as the front row. The IIHS updated its moderate overlap test to address the issue, putting 15 vehicles through the new regime. Two earned good ratings — the 2023 Ford Escape and the 2021-2023 Volvo XC40 — one was acceptable, three were marginal and nine were rated poor. Every one of the crossovers sampled got good marks for all passengers in the original test. That test sees 40% of vehicle's width on the driver's side impacting an aluminum honeycomb barrier at 40 miles per hour. The updated test puts a crash dummy representing small woman or 12-year-old child in the seat behind the driver, the dummy's sensors and grease paint measuring the effectiveness of the restraints and the forces a human body would need to endure. To achieve a good rating, the "measurements must not exceed limits indicating excessive risk of injury to the head, neck, chest, abdomen or thigh." An institute engineer said, "In real-world crashes, chest injuries are the most common serious rear-seat injuries for adults." The sensors and video evidence showed back seat dummies in the Escape and XC40 endured minimal risk of injuries from excessive crash forces, from submarining under the seat belt, or from unwanted interaction with the side curtain airbag.   The Toyota RAV4 scored acceptable. The second-row dummy also endured minimal risk of injury to the chest and lower extremities. However, the lap belt slipped upward in a way that could increase abdominal injuries, and after the dummy's head dipped during crash impact, the head came back up between the rear curtain airbag and rear window.

Volvo's oldest model earns IIHS Top Safety Pick+ award [w/video]

Volvo ought to be tooting its horn over this one. The XC90, an SUV that has essentially been on sale for over 10 years, just captured a Top Safety Pick+ award from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The TSP+ is a new title, reserved for cars that earn "Good" or "Acceptable" ratings on each IIHS crash test.
This is a difficult feat for a new car - Toyota's new Corolla infamously failed to net a Top Safety Pick+ earlier this year - largely because of the new small overlap front tests, which have left many automakers struggling. But Volvo, somehow, was able to conquer the tests with a car that predates the original iPhone by a few years. The XC90 earning a Top Safety Pick+ is like Betty White taking the gold in the decathlon. With Volvo in the midst of working on the XC90's replacement, we're curious to see just how well a more modern version does in crash testing. Take a look down below for the crash test video and a press release from IIHS.