It’s pretty easy to set a price ceiling when you’re shopping for a car. But what about a price floor? Is it worth cross-shopping a much cheaper car? That’s what we’re investigating today. We’ve got a Volvo that seems like a pretty decent deal, and a Mitsubishi that’s so cheap it might be too good to be true.
Yesterday, we looked at a couple of nice old-person cars, about a decade apart in age. The voting was pretty close, about a 55-45 split, in favor of the Buick. The Chrysler won quite a few fans by virtue of being newer and presumably safer, but the Park Avenue’s old-school charm won the day.
I’d go for the Buick as well, I think, precisely because it’s older. I already know my way around it. If you’re doing the repair and maintenance work yourself, like I do, simplicity and user-friendliness counts for a lot. I’m sure I could do whatever I needed to on that Concorde, but ’80s/90s GM products just feel like old friends to me.
If your budget for a car is, say, $3,000, chances are you’re going to walk right up to that line, and maybe even look at a few cars over it. It makes sense; spend more money, get more car. But there’s always a spot to enter a bottom end of the range, too. What do you set that to? $2,000? $1,500? Lower? Is it worth even bothering looking at cheaper cars?
Of course it is. Most cars down in that price range are going to be junk, but there are a few hidden gems. And why spend more money if you don’t have to? So let’s look at a decent three-grand car, and one for half as much, and see whether it makes sense to spend more.
1996 Volvo 850 – $2,850
Engine/drivetrain: 2.4-liter OHC inline 5, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Dearborn, MI
Odometer reading: 150,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Old Volvos generally make really good used cars. They’re built like tanks, and usually have more safety stuff than their contemporaries. The old 240 series used to be a good bet, but they’ve started to climb in value, and the good ones are getting snapped up by collectors. Its replacement, the 850, doesn’t have nearly the following, and probably will stay cheap for a while yet.
Granted, the 850 is driven by what some consider the “wrong” wheels, and it doesn’t have the famous “red block” engine that is so prized by Volvo enthusiasts, but what it has is pretty good. The 850 uses a transversely-mounted five-cylinder engine, and in this case, an Aisin four-speed automatic. It’s durable stuff; I’ve seen these cars with twice as many miles as this one has. It has a bunch of new parts, and the seller says it runs and drives well.
Volvos aren’t really luxury cars, but you can option them up to be pretty fancy, and this one looks like it has quite a few boxes checked. It has power leather seats, keyless entry, and more. The seats are cracked in places, but still comfy-looking. One thing that does need some attention is the air conditioning; the condenser has a crack in it and needs replacing. Hey, at least they didn’t try to say it just needs recharging.
It looks good outside, except for a ding in the trunk lid in the back. The trunk still opens and shuts all right, so it’s purely a cosmetic issue. The black plastic strips on the bumpers are fading to gray, as they all seem to. But I don’t see any signs of rust. I mean, it is a Michigan car, so you’d be wise to look underneath, but from the top it looks damn good.
1998 Mitsubishi Galant ES – $1,400
Engine/drivetrain: 2.4-liter OHC inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Richland, WA
Odometer reading: 201,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The Mitsubishi Galant is one of those “Oh, right” cars. The Toyota Camry and Honda Accord so completely overshadowed it that it’s sometimes easy to forget the Galant even exists until you see one. But from everything I’ve heard, they’re good cars. I’ve had a couple of friends who owned Galants, and had good luck with them. And there’s an upside to being completely overshadowed by Toyota and Honda: you’ll pay a whole lot less for a Galant than you will a Camry or Accord.
US-market Galants were built in the Diamond-Star Motors plant in Normal, Illinois, alongside Eclipses and Eagle Talons. Only one engine was available, a 2.4 liter four-cylinder, with either a single or a double overhead camshaft setup. This being an ES model, it has the SOHC engine. It runs and drives great, the seller says, but that’s all they say. No, really – that’s it. “Runs and drives great, reliable, good on gas.” That’s the entire ad.
It has over 200,000 miles on it, and it shows in the interior condition. It’s not torn up or anything, but there’s a lot of wear. Being an ES, it has power windows and locks, and probably cruise control and stuff like that. But of course, there’s no telling how much of it still works until you try.
Outside, it’s missing some clearcoat, but it’s straight, and it should be rust-free, being a Washington car. Good color, too. We didn’t know how good we had it in the ’90s with all the teal cars, not to mention all the other color choices.
So what do you think? Is the Volvo twice as much car as the Galant? Is the lack of information in the Galant ad enough of a red flag to make it a no-go? Or is it the bargain of the year?
The Volvo for three reasons. I’ve actually driven one with a rare manual swap in it, out of spite for the later generation Galants I had to practice on while working on my ASE’s, and because it looks better.
Galant is the better deal, but my sentimental heart yearns for the car I spent most of my formative years in. Volvo for me today
I voted Volvo, although admittedly out of personal bias. My dad drove a mid ’90s 850 for about a decade and it was a nice car. It was a step above a typical sedan, but not too fancy. It was also very reliable – the only problem his car had in 150k+ miles was an annoying squeak from the dashboard. My dad is not known for treating cars well, is not diligent about maintenance, and is unfamiliar with the concept of a carwash. A car that can survive a decade of his ownership is a car I respect.
The Mitsubishi seems like a solid deal for the price, though. This is a car I am admittedly very biased against – I knew two people that owned similar vehicles, both of which went to the crusher with five digits on the odometer. Two bad Galants (both of which, I should add, were owned by certified cheap-asses who skimped on maintenance) does not mean all Galants are bad. Plus, my expectations are low for $1400, so this car only needs a few semi-reliable months to exceed expectations.
Was inclined toward the Ovlov because it’s a comfortable car, but the Mitsu is closer and not so rusty. Since it’s in Richland I’m bringing my Geiger counter though.
I’ll spend a little more on the Volvo as long as a peek underneath doesn’t show severe rust. It looks like it has been better cared for and probably is much nicer to drive. For someone who needs the cheapest beater they can find though the Gallant is a good deal. You’ll come out ahead if it lasts even a year.
I’ll go with the Mitsu today for half the price. It is nice enough for $1400 and being a WA car, probably no rust. Hopefully everything works. But $1450 will cover the maintenance for a little while.
I generally like Volvos and if maintained, 150k is not too many miles. But the location concerns me as does the lack of working A/C, which of course would add to the overall cost to repair.
The Mitsu looks like a pretty good deal, and if the 2x difference were something more along the lines of 5K and 10K, then it would win. But it’s just a $1400 difference, and I’d pay that for the Volvo.
I still want a Volvo 850 but not that one. They’re getting hard to find in the Northeast without a ton of miles or all rusted out. Gotta assume that one is crusty underneath unless it came from somewhere else.
The Galant seems like a ridiculous deal.
Never buy a car from Michigan
My mom got a brand new 850 (in red) around the time I was born, and we kept it until 2003. I remember being allowed to ride up front when I was a kid, so I could watch the odometer tick over to 100k. Definitely going with the Volvo, even though I’d prefer red.
The last time I drove a Galant was when a friend in college wanted to buy a car for around $1k. It was riding on a temporary spare, every body panel was dented and it had bullet holes in it. You had to hold the steering wheel sideways to go straight, and it had a whole Christmas tree of warning lights on the dashboard. The brakes technically worked, and the exhaust was quite loud. And you could see where the core support was badly damaged and poorly repaired. Galants seem durable as hell but I’ve never wanted to own one.
I will mix it up a bit today and vote for the Mitsubishi. Don’t ask why.
Volvo, provided it’s not too crusty underneath. That boxy aesthetic holds up even after 30 years. The drooping lower dash trim on the driver’s side is a little concerning — what were they doing up in there when they broke off the tabs?
The Mitsu might be a solid car, but given the air freshener and the way some of the trim bits are yellowed, I’m getting smoker’s car vibes.
Mitsubishi due to the location today.