Seriously?

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

Thank you for that Dave - I was curious because I'd seen one on the Flipping Bangers TV programme some time ago. That one looks to be more trouble that it might be worth (even if it is cheap).

Alan

The Flippin Bangers one was a post-96 820 Sterling Alan and if memory serves, a Coupe as well but might be wrong on that last bit. Also i do remember they didn't do the rear pads correctly on that either which usually results in siezed calipers.

That 827 Sterling Fastback is, as you rightly point out, more trouble than it would be worth as there are som nay hidden problams on any car that's been stood for 10 years and before you even get near the car, you already know that the chances are you'll have to rework the rear brakes but to find out for sure you'd have to do them anyway.

Then there are the other common problems, the Main Relay/fuel pump problem and finding an 827 fuel pump isn't easy! Almost certainly there will be other problems from it having been sat so where would you stop?

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

That 827 Sterling Fastback is, as you rightly point out, more trouble than it would be worth as there are som nay hidden problams on any car that's been stood for 10 years and before you even get near the car, you already know that the chances are you'll have to rework the rear brakes but to find out for sure you'd have to do them anyway.

You are particularly right about the being stood for 10 years issue Dave. I often wonder about that when we see Volvo 240s with similar histories - whether they will ever be the same after being brought back to life.

The problem with the 30-40 year old cars that we are interested in is that they have all been through the deprecation nadir when they were 10-30 years old and really weren't worth anything. This particularly hits larger cars because they are expensive to run, so they tend not to be well looked after during that period of their lives, or they sometimes just get parked up on someone's drive or in a paddock because they are unloved. When they get to about 30 years old someone starts thinking they may be worth something with a weekend's work - so we see lots of sort of resurrected motor cars (and bikes) that still need a lot of work.

This issue becomes worse (I think) when motor cars become 40 years old as people start seeing exemption from the MoT test as a good way of avoiding replacing the rusty sills of boot floor on the 1981 244 DL (do you remember the nasty brown car?) that had been worth £300 as scrap.

Just my musings - time for Bob's first walk :-)

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

You are particularly right about the being stood for 10 years issue Dave. I often wonder about that when we see Volvo 240s with similar histories - whether they will ever be the same after being brought back to life.

The problem with the 30-40 year old cars that we are interested in is that they have all been through the deprecation nadir when they were 10-30 years old and really weren't worth anything. This particularly hits larger cars because they are expensive to run, so they tend not to be well looked after during that period of their lives, or they sometimes just get parked up on someone's drive or in a paddock because they are unloved. When they get to about 30 years old someone starts thinking they may be worth something with a weekend's work - so we see lots of sort of resurrected motor cars (and bikes) that still need a lot of work.

This issue becomes worse (I think) when motor cars become 40 years old as people start seeing exemption from the MoT test as a good way of avoiding replacing the rusty sills of boot floor on the 1981 244 DL (do you remember the nasty brown car?) that had been worth £300 as scrap.

Just my musings - time for Bob's first walk :-)

With any car Alan, you'll have recommissioning problems after 10 years storage. All fluids and rubber components should ideally be changed, particularly timing belts. With the majority of 240s being simpler cars with carbs and points/condensor ignition, aside from the timing belt and any obvious lack of use problems in the engine, they should in theory be simpler to get moving again.
With the 827, the electronics will suffer from lack of use as well, the PGM-Fi ECU, EAT ECU, windows ECU, Climate Control ECU, ABS ECU and finally the CCU - Central Control Unit - that functions in many ways to operate things like the wiper delay, programmed wash/wipe, remote entry/central locking/alarm-immobiliser/"Lazy Locking" (full window/sunroof closure from the fob/key), lighting including "See you home" headlights and the list goes on.

Usually as you say, someone decides that (after spending three weeks tinkering here and there) a weekend will see it fully roadworthy and puts it up for sale, expecting a small fortune for something that is essentially a basket case. Most people who have ever done anything in terms of recommissioning a vehicle will see straight through the "enthusiastically" worded advert and realise it's a basket case so will bid accordingly. That means the complete novice who believes the ad/listing when it says a weekends work will see it right will still get what they think is a bargain but will have overpaid and then a few months later it will be listed by them as an abanodoned project. They will be careful to not mention the listing they bought it from that said only a weekend needed to put it right as whichever way you look at it, they will seem inept, either at asssessing the original listing or their abilities to sort it out. Usually they will say they bought it as a resto and life has changed and they don't have the time to complete as that is relatable for most people.

As you rightly point out, the 40 year MoT exemption will exacerbate the situation with cars that are more rust than body being sold with descriptions of "easy project" and similar. Sadly the buyers of cars like that are likely to finish getting it running and do very basic repairs with fibreglass or similar to cars that should be stripped right down and welded properly. I'm all for the 40 year exemption on MoT as long as it happens safely, there is no in between though, you either have a 40 year old car that is a basket case underneath but looks ok on top and goes, stops etc as it should but would crumble in an accident and instead of needing a recovery truck, would need a dustpan and brush or you have a looked after original or well restored solid car that remains safe.
For that reason i think even with the 40 year MoT exemption, i think there should be a mandatory minimum safety check on 40+ year old cars just to ensure they brake/steer correctly and won't crumble in a shunt. Not necessarily a full MoT but a basic inspection to prove they perform the basics correctly. Most responsible owners will still put those cars in for an MoT every so often though, just in case they've missed something in their checks.

[Stephen Edwin]

Originally Posted by Othen

You are particularly right about the being stood for 10 years issue Dave. I often wonder about that when we see Volvo 240s with similar histories - whether they will ever be the same after being brought back to life.

The problem with the 30-40 year old cars that we are interested in is that they have all been through the deprecation nadir when they were 10-30 years old and really weren't worth anything. This particularly hits larger cars because they are expensive to run, so they tend not to be well looked after during that period of their lives, or they sometimes just get parked up on someone's drive or in a paddock because they are unloved. When they get to about 30 years old someone starts thinking they may be worth something with a weekend's work - so we see lots of sort of resurrected motor cars (and bikes) that still need a lot of work.

This issue becomes worse (I think) when motor cars become 40 years old as people start seeing exemption from the MoT test as a good way of avoiding replacing the rusty sills of boot floor on the 1981 244 DL (do you remember the nasty brown car?) that had been worth £300 as scrap.

Just my musings - time for Bob's first walk :-)

It is my long held opinion that larger, expensive, cars tend to fall in to the care of people who don't maintain them, probably can't afford to maintain them.

And I would be cautious about buying a car that is exempt from MOT. I would not necessarily pay more, or as much, for such a car. An independent ... objective ... test inspection is a good thing. An enthusiast seller would not give me the same hope as independent testing. Better in my opinion to buy a car with regular MOT history, and continue independent testing. My generation remember when vehicle safety depended on the responsibility of owners, It is so easy for a good careful even a trained mechanic fitter engineer owner, to overlook a basic point to be checked.

My two farthings worth.




P.S. I predict historic vehicle status will be withdrawn or modified.

Because of the economy, covid, care provision, electric vehicles &c. Tax has to be found including from motorists.

And. There will be some tragic incidents due to inadequate maintenance. Which newspaper or broadcaster will campaign ..... ?

My groats worth.

Stephen

.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

For that reason i think even with the 40 year MoT exemption, i think there should be a mandatory minimum safety check on 40+ year old cars just to ensure they brake/steer correctly and won't crumble in a shunt. Not necessarily a full MoT but a basic inspection to prove they perform the basics correctly. Most responsible owners will still put those cars in for an MoT every so often though, just in case they've missed something in their checks.

Interesting Dave. It turns out that the 40 year MoT exemption was an EU directive, so now we have left that bloc we would be at liberty to change it. I'm not sure I see any great driver to do that though, it would need some sort of concerted campaign (online petition, that sort of thing) to generate enough question time in parliament in order to have it debated and something most people agreed with proposed, then a vote for it, then a change in the law to delete or modify the exemption. I don't see any group with a strongly enough held view to make any of that happen, and parliament has bigger fish to fry.

I wouldn't be against having a MoT or other check for the RB or the Bloop, but all the time the law it is at it is I will not be paying anyone to conduct a test on either of them. I maintain the motor car and motorcycle both well, so paying someone else to tell me that would (in my humble opinion) be a daft thing for me to do.

Having a few perks from the government - such as MoT and tax exemption on two of my older vehicles - are things I won't readily relinquish. I don't think that makes me an irresponsible owner; I'm just one that follows the law.

Just my views.

Alan

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Stephen Edwin

P.S. I predict historic vehicle status will be withdrawn or modified.

Because of the economy, covid, care provision, electric vehicles &c. Tax has to be found including from motorists.

And. There will be some tragic incidents due to inadequate maintenance. Which newspaper or broadcaster will campaign ..... ?

My groats worth.

Stephen

.

Please see my answer to Dave above - obviously I disagree (strongly).

:-)

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

Quite a few other trim "anomalies" too, mostly missing trim but it's generally a scruffy old beast that could like nice with a lot of tinkering....


... That also begs the question as to why this particular Volvo is a classic rather than just a scruffy old Volvo. The divide between being classic or not is larger with this one and the 240 SE was a run-out model to sell off the bodyshells quickly and cheaply. That makes it less desirable MIHO than say a 240 GL with similar equipment, despite the mileage being relatively low on this one.

I'd hazard a guess it was bought by someone living in London (that's where it's for sale now) and used mainly for short distance but long duration journeys so has potentially sat in traffic much of its life.

Ignoring the 8 or so years before it hits the 40 year Historic threshold, i think it will be a long time before this particular Volvo is a classic and as such, should only reach "project" money levels, i'd make a guess at £12-1500 as there is a lot of silly stuff that needs putting right just to get it looking complete, never mind the unseen stuff.

That old red bus caught both of us out Dave, it made £2,764.00 at auction, which is close to the top end of the guide for middling cars. I thought that was strong money for a 1992 car - perhaps it was the low mileage (just under 100,000 I think) that made it popular?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Volvo-240...rdt=true&rt=nc

Alan

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

With any car Alan, you'll have recommissioning problems after 10 years storage. All fluids and rubber components should ideally be changed, particularly timing belts. With the majority of 240s being simpler cars with carbs and points/condensor ignition, aside from the timing belt and any obvious lack of use problems in the engine, they should in theory be simpler to get moving again.
With the 827, the electronics will suffer from lack of use as well, the PGM-Fi ECU, EAT ECU, windows ECU, Climate Control ECU, ABS ECU and finally the CCU - Central Control Unit - that functions in many ways to operate things like the wiper delay, programmed wash/wipe, remote entry/central locking/alarm-immobiliser/"Lazy Locking" (full window/sunroof closure from the fob/key), lighting including "See you home" headlights and the list goes on.

Usually as you say, someone decides that (after spending three weeks tinkering here and there) a weekend will see it fully roadworthy and puts it up for sale, expecting a small fortune for something that is essentially a basket case. Most people who have ever done anything in terms of recommissioning a vehicle will see straight through the "enthusiastically" worded advert and realise it's a basket case so will bid accordingly. That means the complete novice who believes the ad/listing when it says a weekends work will see it right will still get what they think is a bargain but will have overpaid and then a few months later it will be listed by them as an abanodoned project. They will be careful to not mention the listing they bought it from that said only a weekend needed to put it right as whichever way you look at it, they will seem inept, either at asssessing the original listing or their abilities to sort it out. Usually they will say they bought it as a resto and life has changed and they don't have the time to complete as that is relatable for most people.

Right on cue I saw this motor car advertised that illustrates your point perfectly Dave:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/403174450....c101198.m1985

So, in the seller's own words: 'Volvo 240 GLT estate 1984, Silver. Petrol, Automatic, Full leather interior. 102,005 miles on the clock. In relative good condition been parked up in a garage over 15 years.

The engine lights came on , but couldn’t start it as no battery, was in working condition when parked up 15 years ago. It has a slight dent on the drivers side, otherwise in relative good condition, just need a good cleaning etc.

The car is parked in a garage at a farm in Bromsgrove the buyer will need to arrange his own pick up'

... and all for only £5,000!

Anyone that paid £5,000 for a 37 year old motor car that had been parked up on a farm for 15 years, had not been re-commissioned, with no MoT or history and as a non runner must have been overdosing on the wacky baccy!

Some good news though, if this one sells for £5,000 then the RB will be worth £10,000!

:-)

PS. It just needs a good clean... a weekend's work I should think.

PPS. Back in 2006 it failed a MoT with these faults:

25 July 2006
FAIL
Mileage
99,775 miles
Reason(s) for failure
Nearside Headlamp aim too low when the centre of the headlamp is below 850mm from the ground (1.6.B2)
Offside Headlamp aim too low when the centre of the headlamp is below 850mm from the ground (1.6.B2)
Nearside Registration plate lamp not working (1.1.5c)
Nearside Front Seat belt anchorage prescribed area is excessively corroded (5.2.6)
Rear Exhaust has a major leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2)

... it managed to pass when re-tested the same day, so the rusty floor has probably fixed itself in the past 15 years :-).

[Moomoo]

Originally Posted by Othen

Right on cue I saw this motor car advertised that illustrates your point perfectly Dave:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/403174450....c101198.m1985

So, in the seller's own words: 'Volvo 240 GLT estate 1984, Silver. Petrol, Automatic, Full leather interior. 102,005 miles on the clock. In relative good condition been parked up in a garage over 15 years.

The engine lights came on , but couldn’t start it as no battery, was in working condition when parked up 15 years ago. It has a slight dent on the drivers side, otherwise in relative good condition, just need a good cleaning etc.

The car is parked in a garage at a farm in Bromsgrove the buyer will need to arrange his own pick up'

... and all for only £5,000!

Anyone that paid £5,000 for a 37 year old motor car that had been parked up on a farm for 15 years, had not been re-commissioned, with no MoT or history and as a non runner must have been overdosing on the wacky baccy!

Some good news though, if this one sells for £5,000 then the RB will be worth £10,000!

:-)

PS. It just needs a good clean... a weekend's work I should think.

PPS. Back in 2006 it failed an MoT with these faults:

25 July 2006
FAIL
Mileage
99,775 miles
Reason(s) for failure
Nearside Headlamp aim too low when the centre of the headlamp is below 850mm from the ground (1.6.B2)
Offside Headlamp aim too low when the centre of the headlamp is below 850mm from the ground (1.6.B2)
Nearside Registration plate lamp not working (1.1.5c)
Nearside Front Seat belt anchorage prescribed area is excessively corroded (5.2.6)
Rear Exhaust has a major leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2)

... it managed to pass when re-tested the same day, so the rusty floor has probably fixed itself in the past 15 years :-).

I always thought Cuckoos left in July! 😂 £5000😂 I do like a good laugh!😂

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Moomoo

I always thought Cuckoos left in July! 😂 £5000😂 I do like a good laugh!😂

... und mich auch!